I was reading thru some old posts-- got me thinking

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:27 pm

I was reading thru some old posts, and came across this from Haulover, Dated Wed, may 19, 2004 called "Lizzies missing time". It stated "This is speculative post about Lizzies account of herself during the morning of the murders.

In trying to reason that an axe murderer who is not Lizzie is in the houst th at morning."

This got me to thinking, if LIzzie didn't do it then, who? And how was he/she in the house and no one notices? I can understand wanting to kill Andrew but Abby? And then leave Lizzie and Bridget alive?

One scenrio that I have been playing with is that maybe Lizzie set the whole thing up and it got out of hand. I was also thinking that Andrew was the only one suppose to get killed, and Abby got in the way.

That would be the only way to explain how to people got killed and left two alive.
Any suggetions or ideas? Or am I just letting my imagination run away with me?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:16 pm

YES SNOKKUMS, You have hit on the scenario that I have always believed in.

I have discovered long ago that Borden Scholars are very passionate about their theories and convictions about who killed Andrew and Abby.

I have always believed that, though she did not swing the axe, Lizzie planned the killings. Though I think things probably did not go the way she had planned------or perhaps it did.

That is why she was in the Barn. Though she knew, and probably saw her dead stepmother laying on the floor, when it came to killing her father she could not bear being in the house while it was being done. I believe that killing her father was probably part of the "emotional Frenzy" (as Victoria Liincoln suggested, in a sort of "fit") or the heat of the moment when everything went wrong, for Andrew, that is. Sort of a murderous fever. I believe she wanted Abby dead, and even perhaps her father, and thus had hired someone to do it-------thus the reason no weapon was ever found or spatter of blood on her clothing. It is hard for me to believe that, at the very least, one solitary tiny blood drop did not hit her. That she could dispose of the axe so quickly.

It just happened too fast. If she had done it all, some evidence would have been discovered. Though the police did not have the crime technology they have today, I need to believe that they could not have been "that" incompetent---------or could they?

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:46 am

Perhaps Abby did get a note that a friend was sick but the note came from Lizzie herself as a means of getting Abby out of the house so her father could be killed. Or maybe there was no note but rather Lizzie tried to convince Abby to go into town and when that didn't work, Abby was killed.

I still believe both Abby and Andrew were targets, though. That way there would be no trouble for Lizzie in regards to the money. I just don't think Lizzie actually did the killing herself. I can't help thinking that Moorse had something to do with the killings. Perhaps Lizzie's avoidance of her Uncle was an indication that Lizzie knew what was going down?

Bridget was not killed because she was not a target. The killer had nothing to gain in killing her. Lizzie was not killed because she ordered the "hits" and, I feel, worked with the killer. But, what was in it for the killer? Money? Lizzie didn't have any and would a killer wait months to get paid?

There is some missing piece we are not seeing, I feel. As Gypsy Rose Lee would say, "There is more here than meets the eye."

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:47 am

I would think the real target was Abbie because of the amount of violence towards her. Maybe there was a killer that hated her more than Lizzie did?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:00 pm

mbhenty @ Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:16 pm wrote:

YES SNOKKUMS, You have hit on the scenario that I have always believed in.

I have discovered long ago that Borden Scholars are very passionate about their theories and convictions about who killed Andrew and Abby.

I have always believed that, though she did not swing the axe, Lizzie planned the killings. Though I think things probably did not go the way she had planned------or perhaps it did.

That is why she was in the Barn. Though she knew, and probably saw her dead stepmother laying on the floor, when it came to killing her father she could not bear being in the house while it was being done. I believe that killing her father was probably part of the "emotional Frenzy" (as Victoria Liincoln suggested, in a sort of "fit") or the heat of the moment when everything went wrong, for Andrew, that is. Sort of a murderous fever. I believe she wanted Abby dead, and even perhaps her father, and thus had hired someone to do it-------thus the reason no weapon was ever found or spatter of blood on her clothing. It is hard for me to believe that, at the very least, one solitary tiny blood drop did not hit her. That she could dispose of the axe so quickly.

It just happened too fast. If she had done it all, some evidence would have been discovered. Though the police did not have the crime technology they have today, I need to believe that they could not have been "that" incompetent---------or could they?

Your post got me thinking- again. If she planned the whole thing, why didn't she come forword and identify who killed them? She went on trial for killing her parents, why didn't she say who actually did it if she knew? Or was she afraid that she would tried for conspirisy?

Cheryl · Post by **Cheryl** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:20 pm

The lack of blood on Lizzie doesn't necessarily indicate that she had help killing her parents. If it were a hired hit, and someone was hiding and eventually fleeing the scene, there would be droplets or shoeprint smears somewhere. I can't imagine Lizzie requiring this person to strip down and leave the area spotless. If anything, I think she'd want a trail leading
outside...it would certainly help her intruder theory.

The fact that the scene was so spotless leads me to believe more firmly in Lizzie's guilt that it was her own hand. Tearing and burning a dress hidden in a cupboard, along with bloody rags in the basement seem too much for me to overlook.

And is that a normal thing to do with a "paint"-stained dress...burn it??
Lizzie was raised in such a frugal household, wouldn't it be recycled for dusting cloths or something? Wouldn't this be something given to Bridget
to handle?
And why did she stuff a cupboard with a dress? If it just had paint on it, why was it tucked away high up in a cupboard in the kitchen? Odd circumstances that just don't seem to "fit" with a hired hit.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:06 pm

Cheryl @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:20 pm wrote:The fact that the scene was so spotless leads me to believe more firmly in Lizzie's guilt that it was her own hand. Tearing and burning a dress hidden in a cupboard, along with bloody rags in the basement seem too much for me to overlook.

And is that a normal thing to do with a "paint"-stained dress...burn it??
Lizzie was raised in such a frugal household, wouldn't it be recycled for dusting cloths or something? Wouldn't this be something given to Bridget
to handle?

Good points, Cheryl. This is one reason I doubt Bridget had anything to do with it, even after the fact.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:20 pm

I think that maybe Bridget might have unwittingly partner in the crime after the fact. The house was spotless after the crime. And with brutalness of the crime, there would have been blood ever where, even if Lizzie did it in the nude.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:47 pm

Spotless? Hardly. There certainly was enough blood at the crime scenes. I assume you mean other than in the sitting room and guest room. I think Lizzie (or whoever) could have kept it limited to there (as she evidently did).