Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Hi all , I'm new here. So I hope you'll excuse me if this has been posted before , I didn't find it in the search.

What if the time of Abbys death was much closer to the time of Andrews death . I believe they estimated time of death just by feeling the body so I think its possible they could have gotten it wrong.
Anyway its just a thought.

Hi hyacinth, welcome to the forum!

Have you read Masterton's book "Lizzie Didn't Do It"? His theory is that they were both killed at about the same time, with Andrew actually being killed first.

It was Dr. Dolan, the Medical Examiner, who "took" the body temperature by touch.

Masterton also looks at the evidence of food digestion and blood coagulation.
I don't necessarily believe his theory but the book is well written and persuasive in spots and will have you thinking.

Again, welcome.

Thanks for the welcome Harry
I haven't read that book yet but I probably will sometime . I did read Arnold Browns book but I didn't buy his ideas.
I don't know if Lizzie did it or not but its interesting to read all the different ideas.

Welcome to the forum, hyacinth!

It is important to consider the totality of the evidence in reaching a conclusion about the time of death. Digestive states, body temperatures, extent of blood coagulation, and the idea that Abby hadn't been seen or heard by anyone since roughly 9:30 am, all point to the same sequence. Another consideration might be that the doctors examining Abby and Andrew could have thought that there was enough of a difference in the palpable body temperatures to be conclusive. They might have thought a thermometer was not necessary if Abby's body was decisively cooler than Andrew's. If that was true, then they were probably correct about Abby's time of death.

Not that I totally discard the medical evidence but to me Abbie's absence was always the strongest point that she was killed first. I don't accept Lizzie's story of the note and I think one would have to in order to account for Abbie being away that length of time.

Masterton's handling of Abbie's absence is the weakest part of his book. But I'm not here to defend Masterton's book as it is a good read whether you believe it or not.

The first half of Masterton's book retells the story of the murders. It is the best part.
The second half is his concocted theory of Abby dying later; it is Total Bllusiht!!! (Pardon my typing.)

The innocence of OJ Simpson can be correctly inferred from the red liquid blood of Nicole and Ron; they were killed around/after 11:30 pm. Note how Masterton has to distort the known facts about the Bordens to deny the truth about the killing of Nicole and Ron. (Note the references to OJ Simpson in a book on an 1892 killing!!!)

hyacinth @ Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:50 pm wrote:Hi all , I'm new here. So I hope you'll excuse me if this has been posted before , I didn't find it in the search.

What if the time of Abbys death was much closer to the time of Andrews death . I believe they estimated time of death just by feeling the body so I think its possible they could have gotten it wrong.
Anyway its just a thought.

You must read David Kent's "Forty Whacks" as the best book on this case.

The Harvard medical doctors examined the stomach contents to determine the time of death, along with other data. Abby was not seen alive since around 9:15 am. Andy not seen alive after about 10:45am.
Masterton and the others who queston this established fact are not being honest, and should not believed unless they have some facts (they don't).

RayS @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:27 pm wrote:

hyacinth @ Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:50 pm wrote:Hi all , I'm new here. So I hope you'll excuse me if this has been posted before , I didn't find it in the search.

What if the time of Abbys death was much closer to the time of Andrews death . I believe they estimated time of death just by feeling the body so I think its possible they could have gotten it wrong.
Anyway its just a thought.

You must read David Kent's "Forty Whacks" as the best book on this case.

The Harvard medical doctors examined the stomach contents to determine the time of death, along with other data. Abby was not seen alive since around 9:15 am. Andy not seen alive after about 10:45am.
Masterton and the others who queston this established fact are not being honest, and should not believed unless they have some facts (they don't).

Who the hell are you to question mine or anyone else's honesty? Kiss my backside! You who spout this Arnold Brown nonsense endlessly, which has NO PROOF, zero, nada, none. You have turned this forum into a joke.

Hyacinth, READ MASTERTON. Read anything but BROWN unless you want a good laugh.

Hyacinth, don't pay Ray no never mind. He is not a well man.

Angel @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:55 pm wrote:Hyacinth, don't pay Ray no never mind. He is not a well man.

Yes Hyacinth, Ray ONLY supports Brown's theory. He is not one to be positive, upbeat, or deal in warm fuzzies...IMO. There are plenty of other people here who can help you...PLENTY.

Take a look at the source documents (trial transcripts, etc.).

Check outthe following links for more information...maybe even more than you wanted to know about the Borden case !

LIZZIE ANDREW BORDEN WEBSITE (MAIN):
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/

LIZZIE ANDREW BORDEN VIRTUAL MUSEUM AND LIBRARY:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/LizzieABorden.htm

Welcome aboard !





Tracy...

I have to agree Hyacinth, and welcome by the way. Ray is angry with the world and has a one track mind and thinks it is the correct one. IGNORE him! Members like Harry, Theebmonique and Angel would not steer you wrong!

Whoa , I sure didn't mean to set off anyone.
I'll have to get those other books when I can . I just couldn't believe Brown's idea that Lizzie knew who did it and was protecting them. And that it was arranged for her to be tried and aquited by the political machine in Fall River.
Was it ever proved that there was an illigitimate brother or was just Brown's fantasy ?
I also always wondered why anybody would use a hatchet when poison could be used and maybe go undetected . I'm sure poisons , other than prussic acid , were lying around the average victorian house .

hyacinth @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:38 pm wrote: I also always wondered why anybody would use a hatchet when poison could be used and maybe go undetected . I'm sure poisons , other than prussic acid , were lying around the average victorian house .

I had a theory about this. While I watching a television show about female killers a little while back they presented the story of a woman poisoner named Nannie Doss. During her first attempt to murder her fourth husband she gave him too much of the poison. This just caused him to vomit before the poison could get into his system. So he survived, though he was deathly sick. Nannie was using rat poison, which was commonly known to contain arsenic. If Lizzie had been trying to poison her parents but was unsure of the dosages she could have been using too much poison. It could've just caused them to become deathly ill instead of killing them. We know the Borden's were sick prior to the murders. Abby also went to Dr. Bowen with fears of being poisoned somehow. Having failed with attempts at using another poisons, Lizzie may have tried to get prussic acid because of the certain lethality of the substance and how instantaneously it killed it's victims. She may have wanted to get her hands on a substance she was sure would kill them outright. After not being able to obtain the prussic acid, I think she decided she'd have to take more drastic measures.

This is a link if you'd like to check out the discussion on this topic.
viewtopic.php?t=2654

I would also like to welcome you to the forum hyacinth.

hyacinth @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:38 pm wrote:Whoa , I sure didn't mean to set off anyone.
I'll have to get those other books when I can . I just couldn't believe Brown's idea that Lizzie knew who did it and was protecting them. And that it was arranged for her to be tried and aquited by the political machine in Fall River.
Was it ever proved that there was an illigitimate brother or was just Brown's fantasy ?
I also always wondered why anybody would use a hatchet when poison could be used and maybe go undetected . I'm sure poisons , other than prussic acid , were lying around the average victorian house .

Welcome Hyacinth! As you've already seen, people here can get pretty passionate about their viewpoints. My advice is to let as much slide as possible. We're a unique group of individuals who are all drawn to the same mystery. The best we can do is agree to disagree! But personally, I find the different views and theories make for a richer discussion.

First, about your posting topic, I feel it was proven quite conclusively that Abby died prior to Andrew. Evidence supporting this comes from a number of sources - body temp, observations on the clotting, stomach contents (ie, stage of digestion when death occurred) - and the fact that not only do these all point to the same scenario, but it also fits best with the known facts of who was seen last and when. IMO, it's very safe to assume Abby was the first to go.

You bring up an excellent point about why go about murdering the couple in such an obvious and attention-getting manner when the job could have been accomplished - and perhaps gone undetected - had poison been the agent of death. IMO I think the killer(s) started off intending to kill Mr and Mrs by poison, however something happened - some precipitatng factor occurred - that necessitated that the Bordens die much more immediately. Now what that was, I'm not certain, though I have some ideas, but I remain convinced that the original "plan" wasn't to hack the Bordens to death - and yet, when the poisoning was taking too long, that's what the killer(s) resorted to.

About Arnold Brown and the "illegitimate child" - the IDEA is plausible, but to my knowledge there is NO HARD EVIDENCE of the existance of such a person. Brown raised an interesting theory, although he was not the first to suggest that the killer was an illegitimate child of Andrew's (see Knowlton Papers). This theory does appear to answer some of the most basic questions - how, why, who - in a fairly plausible explanation, as far as Borden murder theories go. But my main "beef" with Brown is that he can't back up what he's proposing. If new evidence, hard evidence, would come to light, I would certainly consider the idea again.

There's my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth, but do be sure and read the source documents and as many of the primary sources as you can. I still feel those are the most valuable. After covering those, I'd encourage you to read any and all theories and books on the matter, because I think it helps one to shape their own opinion. Having read the primary sources, you yourself can decide how the various authors' theories stack up against them - i.e. what makes sense and what doesn't.

I would also HIGHLY encourage you to read Rebello's book "Lizzie Borden Past & Present" after you read the primary docs. He does a wonderful job of presenting so many aspects of the case in thoroughly researched manner. Best of luck, and jump in anytime!

Allen @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:11 pm wrote:

hyacinth @ Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:38 pm wrote: I also always wondered why anybody would use a hatchet when poison could be used and maybe go undetected . I'm sure poisons , other than prussic acid , were lying around the average victorian house .

I had a theory about this. While I watching a television show about female killers a little while back they presented the story of a woman poisoner named Nannie Doss. During her first attempt to murder her fourth husband she gave him too much of the poison. This just caused him to vomit before the poison could get into his system. So he survived, though he was deathly sick. Nannie was using rat poison, which was commonly known to contain arsenic. If Lizzie had been trying to poison her parents but was unsure of the dosages she could have been using too much poison. It could've just caused them to become deathly ill instead of killing them. We know the Borden's were sick prior to the murders. Abby also went to Dr. Bowen with fears of being poisoned somehow. Having failed with attempts at using another poisons, Lizzie may have tried to get prussic acid because of the certain lethality of the substance and how instantaneously it killed it's victims. She may have wanted to get her hands on a substance she was sure would kill them outright. After not being able to obtain the prussic acid, I think she decided she'd have to take more drastic measures.

This is a link if you'd like to check out the discussion on this topic.
viewtopic.php?t=2654

That's an interesting idea, Allen, it brings up other considerations. The murders might more likely be linked to John Morse's visit. Since the Bordens were ill Tuesday night before Morse was present, that might imply the poisoner knew he was coming and wanted to prevent any business transacted in his presence. Lizzie seemed to pointedly ignore Morse while he was there. It might tend to explain some of Morse's seemingly disjointed actions when he returned to the house for lunch. If he had any inkling of what had occurred, he may have needed time to collect his thoughts before entering the house.

Hi!

With poisoning, as Allen points out, it is probably hard to figure the proper dosage to do the job- and also one could not control who died first- if that was an important consideration.
So poison would be pretty tricky.

Information as to when a person was last seen and when they last ate are still viable ingredients in a professional assessment of TOD.

Another consideration about poison, it is difficult to limit unless it is used at the last moment. It would have to be included specifically into Abby's and Andrew's food, and nowhere else. Lizzie and Emma would have had an opportunity to avoid poisoned food by eating something else if they didn't eat with their parents, but Bridget would likely have eaten the same thing as Abby and Andrew. When you come right down to it, Bridget would probably have been the prime suspect in a poisoning case.