Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I have always believed that when a killer decides they want someone dead, and is not a serial killer with the compulsion to commit murders in the same ritualistic fashion over and over, they will use whatever means necessary to carry out the deed. This is why I think when Lizzie couldn't get her hands on the poison she wanted she turned to the axe instead. It was handy within the house and easily obtained. I do not subscribe to the theory that since she first chose poison she had to be a "poisoner". She wasn't a serial killer. She simply wanted her parents dead and out of the way for her own freedom and wealth. She was a novice killer who probably pondered many different modes of death prior to the day of the murders, I think anyway. When she couldn't obtain the prussic acid she wanted she simply went to another plan. Once they elder Borden's were out of the way any urge she had to kill died with them, in my opinion.

But since some people still ponder why she would make the switch from poison to a hatchet, I am watching a very interesting show on televsion about female killers. One of the women discussed was a female poisoner by the name of Nannie Doss. What I found interesting about her case is they talked about the murder of her fourth husband Sam Doss. She killed him by administering arsenic in the form of rat poison. Her first attempt to poison him failed because she administered too much of the poison. Therefore he simply became violently ill and vomitted up the majority of the poison which prevented it from going into his blood stream and being a lethal dose. He lived. Very interesting considering the Borden's were violenty ill just before the murders. There was also Abby's fear of having been poisoned in some manner. Then there is the failed attempt to by another poison, prussic acid. Points to ponder.


http://www.cumuseumofterror.com/NannieDoss.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~sherby/index3.html

In Lizzie's case it makes me wonder why there was such a sense of immediacy to the murder? If she used a poison, made them sick, tried to buy Prussic acid, fails, then resorts to the hatchet despite Uncle John showing up; its like Andrew and Abby needed to die that week for some reason. What was afoot that would make it so urgent to kill them then? Wouldn't it have been safer to wait until Uncle John had left? Or, was he the catalyst? They needed to die before his arrival because of some scheme that he would be part of?

And with the poison, we know of one day where the elder Bordens were extremely sick, but, with Lizzie being an amateur, how long had the poisoning been going on before that day? Could it have been days of poisoning, days of insufficient doses with no results for her?

I was thinking about the poison last night. She tryed to buy it for a different reason. Wasn't it to kill moths on fur or something like that? But How do we even know she did try to buy the poison? she said she never tryed to buy it. There where no cameras back then at the store to get her on tape so all we have is a person working at the store saying she tryed to buy poison. What if he was wrong about who he saw?

But wasn't she seen by several witnesses at the drug store? I thought it was the testimony of some shoppers at the store as well as the druggist.

That's a very interesting theory about the poison, Allen. I never thought of it that way.

PS--Susan, I love your signature, lol.

That testimony was rejected for the Trial. Hence it was not relevant.

Somewhere somebody said there was another person (a look-alike?) who was in that store that morning. An expert will tell about this.

Granted that this was a small-town, but many miscarriages of justice derive from mistaken identification. When someone sees a stranger for just a short time.
Ever notice how people identify others by clothing?

Maybe I am wrong, maybe Lizzie did want to kill her parents. I feel
like I have to defend Lizzie because she was never found guilty but maybe she is guilty. It is hard to know what to think when you have so
many other people who could of murdered them as well as Lizzie.

I think a couple of the workers saw someone who either was Lizzie or looked like Lizzie at the store. Lets say that she did want to buy poison,
do you think it is possible she could of wanted it for herself? Do herself
in? Cause she would of either wanted it to give to someone, use it
on herself or use it on the fur.

Some possibly very interesting testimony that was also suppressed would have come from the man who was employed as furrier. I think he was going to testify that one does not use acid to clean sealskin. But we will never know because the court chose to exclude his testimony.

Lizzie did not say she wanted the prussic acid to clean her sealskin cape. According to Bence. At inquest.

Ok, to clean her fur cape. But is it in his statement given to police.

The Witness Statements page 6 from the notes of Doherty and Harrington:

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.

Kat @ Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:10 am wrote:Lizzie did not say she wanted the prussic acid to clean her sealskin cape. According to Bence. At inquest.

Wouldn't a cedar chest have accomplished this? Years ago they were used to store woolen clothes.
Did they have mothballs in those days?

To put on the edge is correct. *Cleaning* was not mentioned. Everyone thru time has always gotten that one wrong- Thanks for the right phrase, Missy.

Bence on oath
Inquest
160
Q. Did she say what she wanted it for?
A. I understood her to say she wanted it to put on the edge of a seal skin cape, if I remember rightly.

--Now see what Lizzie says when asked if she went to get some prussic acid.

Poison In The Case

---There is what Alice Russell says Lizzie told her on Wednesday night:
Trial, p. 376
And she says, "Sometimes I think our milk might be poisoned." And I said, "Well, how do you get your milk; how could it be poisoned?" And she said, "We have the milk come in a can and set on the step, and we have an empty can. We put out the empty can overnight, and the next morning when they bring the milk they take the empty can." And I said, "Well, if they put anything in the can the farmer
would see it." And then I said---I asked her what time the milk came, if she knew. She said, "I think about four o'clock." And I said, "Well, it is light at four. I shouldn't think anybody would dare to come then and tamper with the cans for fear somebody would see them." And she said, "I shouldn't think so."

---Rebello, 81:
"Nailing The Poison Story / Neither Nor Any Relatives Bought Prussic Acid at Brow's," Boston Herald, August 8, 1982: 2.

It was claimed Lizzie made a second attempt to purchase prussic acid at Walter J. Brow's Drug Store at 62 Second Street. A Boston Herald reporter interviewed Mr. Brow to verify the rumor. Mr. Brow said Lizzie traded at his store and had known Lizzie for the past twenty years. He assured the reporter Lizzie did not purchase any prussic acid. He recalled that Lizzie stopped trading at his store about four years ago. Her last purchase was chloroform, stating she wanted it for the purpose of killing a cat. Mr. Brow states Miss Borden asked for the stuff in rather a surly manner, and he answered just as saucily. Miss Borden paid for the chloroform and went out. She has never been in the shop since."

The chloroform incident must have been researched, because here we have some testimony implying that:
----Nathaniel Hathaway, analytical chemist, at trial:

Q. What do they kill cats with? If you want to kill a cat, and don't shoot her or knock her on the head or tie a stone around her and leave her in a bag down by the river? What would you kill cats with if you wanted to do it quietly?
A. I am unable to state, sir.

Q. You have no experience in that way?
A. No, sir.

Q. Well, suppose you put one in a box and put some strong chloroform in with her, what about it?
A. I think if the box was tight the cat would die, if you put in enough

Page 1295

chloroform.

Q. Is it the same about ether?
A. I am a little doubtful about ether, with a cat.

Q. You don't know I suppose?
A. No, sir.


---There is the Bence-Hart-Kilroy identification of Lizzie as attempting to buy a poison, prussic acid on Wednesday Aug 3.

---There is this, from Knowlton, late in the trial, which we don’t get to hear evidence on:


[Mr. Moody, going over Bence’s testimony for the Court after the witness and the jury are removed]


"She did not buy anything, no drug at all, no medicine?"
"No sir."

Then follows merely the identification. I do not know in what way your Honors desire to hear the discussion.

MASON, C. J. Perhaps we had better hear the objection.

Page 1242

MR. ROBINSON. I understand that the offer does not include facts to show that there was any sale.

MR. MOODY. No, sir.

MR. ROBINSON. And we perhaps may anticipate, but I believe it may be fair to ask whether there is any evidence of any sale to this defendant?

MR. KNOWLTON. No, sir.

MR. ROBINSON. In any other place?

MR. KNOWLTON. No, sir. It would be fair to say we have evidence to show some attempt to purchase prussic acid in another place, with the same negative results.

MR. ROBINSON. You propose to bring evidence upon attempts, but no success?.

MR. KNOWLTON. Yes, sir.

What I am getting at is that there are stories about Lizzie and poison swirling around her. If these stories are somewhat accurate, it might imply she has some experience in this direction. People will rely upon a weapon they have experience with, especially if it is a woman, wielding a *woman's weapon.*

Some famous wives and girlfriends who poisoned were not serial killers.
But- in my considered opinion, poisoning is a form of serial killing, like strangling, when the strangler releases grip to let the victim breathe again, only to strangle them some more. That is killing them again and again- technically and ethically.
The poisoning of a person over time, is killing them over and over again. They are allowed to recover, only to be poisoned again. This might be over time, or in an incident that spans just a few days.
And remember- there was more than one victim. We might even include Bridget as a victim if we think Lizzie was poisoning the family. That is 3 people suffering. They could have died, except for the *intervention* of a hatchet. That is one way of looking at it. It's not a mass murder- but an attempt at killing over time, 2 or more people probably does fall into *serial killer* catagory.

Maybe that's why Bridget hightailed it out of town as soon as she could. When she heard about the poison rumors and remembered she too had been sick she might have realized she was lucky to be alive.

I think if I were Bridget, and did not kill the Bordens, I would get away pretty fast- as soon as I could. I would never trust that girl, Lizzie, no matter if she was acquitted!

I'd certainly run away as well. I still have a lot to read about the case, I didn't get to the part of the trial where the poison was mentioned.

But I have a question though. Didn't I read somewhere that a report said there were no evidences of poison in the bodies? I just read over both Andrew and Abby's autopsies and there is nothing said.

Prof. Dr. Wood tested for known poisons and found nothing. Check "Wood" for his expert opinions.

Kat @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:50 am wrote:. That is one way of looking at it. It's not a mass murder- but an attempt at killing over time, 2 or more people probably does fall into *serial killer* catagory.

The attempted killing of two or more people at the same time does fall under "mass" murder catagory, and not "serial" killing. Serial killers usually do not stop until they are either caught or they die. This is why they are called "serial" killers. They keep going. The killing of two or more people at the same time, with no repeated occurances of murder afterward, is classified as "mass" murder. These are the definitions as I have learned them anyway. Also if Lizzie did attempt to buy and use the poison on her parents and it didn't work, she didn't continue to poison them.

Well I didn't say at the same time, I said over time. Time elapsing between poisonings is the *serial* part I am getting at. It's my own opinion.

Poison is no guarantee of death- just as you showed in your first post- the example of the man who threw up the overdose and lived. Also, poisoning several people, or even 2, will give different results as each person's system will react in their own way- weight, physical health, age- may all be factors. That implies that one person being poisoned in a household may live longer than another. There's no control over when just one dies- it's taking a chance- which might indicate the poisioner is having fun doing mischief and there is not especially a time limit to get the job *nicely* done.

If Lizzie did not poison anyone, then I could account for her using a hatchet, if she killed them. If she did poison them, I still don't see the switch of weapon- but then you know this, so I'll be quiet now (hopefully).

Kat @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:31 am wrote:If Lizzie did not poison anyone, then I could account for her using a hatchet, if she killed them. If she did poison them, I still don't see the switch of weapon- but then you know this, so I'll be quiet now (hopefully).

I continue to see the pattern of events in the household as following a pretty classic escalation of domestic violence that culminated in the murders. I take into consideration the home robbery, the "poisoning" and the murders as major markers in this progression. As far as profiling goes, the pattern of events evidenced here seems to fit very well with a personal cause killing that is domestic in origin, so I guess the fact that the weapons used to inflict that terrorism/suffering changed over time doesn't bother me too much.

What I do not understand, and what always nags at me when considering this case, is what made the killer(s) choose that particular time to murder the Bordens? In "profile-speak," what was the precipitating factor(s) that led to the murders? What caused the perp to move from poison to axe? From "threat" to "deed?" Assuming the same person was responsible for both events (which I personally believe), the progression of events isn't too mysterious to me...but the time lapse between stages is. There was barely 48-72 hrs between the "poisoining" and the murders. What moved the killer to decide that the Bordens had to die one way or another on Aug 4th? What was to occur if they'd lived longer? Was it a case of opportunity presenting itself for the inevitable deed, or did some factor absolutely necessitate that the murders occur then and there, no matter how risky the circumstances?

I tend to think that most killers would not have taken the risks that the Bordens' killer(s) did on that day - unless absolutely necessary. Something was about to occur that, had the Bordens lived longer, would have had a grave impact on the killer(s).

I agree, there was a sense of immediacy to the murders and the method, poison or hatchet, was unimportant to the killer. I believe Abby had a sense her life was in danger due to her visit to Dr. Bowen the morning before the murders. Her fear of being poisoned is not supported by her actions. She ate a good breakfast before seeing the doctor, which indicates she wasn't ill enough to avoid eating and that she wasn't overly concerned about the food in the household containing poison. I think the illness the previous night was an excuse to involve the doctor in her belief. This would also seem to imply a sense of immediacy on Abby's part. It could be a fear of Abby going to the authorities which provided the impetus. This would also seem to indicate that Andrew did not share Abby's fear for some reason, he was unwilling to see the doctor. Abby would have been aware of something which Andrew was not aware of, or chose to ignore.

I think it is very interesting that there are anecdotes about Lizzie and a hatchet in the material we have, and also in our *Lizzie Lore.*

There may be as many of those as there are references to Lizzie and poison. I think the hatchet references were not dwelled upon during proceedings, but poison was- yet poison was not found in the victims, nor did they die from that.

We ought to collect the hatchet stories?

Arnold Brown's book (a century after the fact) logically answers the questions.
The murderer was a Visitor whose presence was kept secret. Hence no bloodstains on Bridget or Lizzie.
He normally carried a hatchet with him (like a carpenter in those days). Hence no murder weapon found.

You are free to disagree with his book, but you will admit his story covers all the bases?
Its the only book to come up with a logical solution to the puzzle.

Kat @ Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:03 am wrote:I think if I were Bridget, and did not kill the Bordens, I would get away pretty fast- as soon as I could. I would never trust that girl, Lizzie, no matter if she was acquitted!

Wasn't that what Bridget did?

Kat @ Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:38 pm wrote:To put on the edge is correct. *Cleaning* was not mentioned. Everyone thru time has always gotten that one wrong- Thanks for the right phrase, Missy.

Bence on oath
Inquest
160
Q. Did she say what she wanted it for?
A. I understood her to say she wanted it to put on the edge of a seal skin cape, if I remember rightly.

--Now see what Lizzie says when asked if she went to get some prussic acid.

But don't witnesses remember things differently? Or interpret what happened? Such differences are normal when there is no collusion or rehearsal. IMO
Don't look too much into differences in memory.

Bence was consistent even into the trial that what he said in the Witness Statements, that Missy provided, was what the lady said to him. He was led astray a bit but he kept coming back to the bottom line that she wanted it to put on the edge of a cape. You can look it up!

As for what Bridget did- she slept away from the house Thursday night but she came back Friday so no, she did not get as far away as possible as soon as she could.