Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I was reading, again, on another website, 14 reasons to believe Lizzie murdered her parents. They came up with some very good reasons. For instance, it looks like an inside job, and she was the only one in the house. John Morse was out visiting relatives, Emma was visiting friends, and Bridget was out washing the windows.

Lizzie was the only one in the house. What does everyone think? I ithink she did it.

snokkums @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:40 pm wrote: I was reading, again, on another website, 14 reasons to believe Lizzie murdered her parents.

Robin, would you please state the source for this website. It would be helpful if you would copy the web site address from the URL bar, and then paste it here. Thanks.

The website is Famous Trails" The trail of Lizzie Borden.
Off the url bar its http://www.lawumc.edu/faulty/Projects'ftrials/Lizzie Borden home.html.

Probably just easier to plug in Famous trails. I put in the name Lizzie Borden and came up with the web page.

Thanks, Robin.

The URL address you posted doesn't work - but I found it: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... nhome.html
That is the web site I thought you were referring to, and this is the link to the page which contains the fourteen reasons: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... dence.html

There are two reasons I asked for a source:

1). I wanted to find out if this web site had listed any sources; which they do: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... iblio.html

2). On Monday, Oct, 9th, 2006, you were the author of the topic titled, Fourteen Reasons to Believe Lizzie murdered her parents. Here is the link: viewtopic.php?t=2342

Now to answer your question. If you are going to take this list of fourteen reasons at face value, then it is true all these reasons point to Lizzie as the killer. However, if you carefully read through the fourteen reasons listed, you'll find that they contain a few errors, some speculation and assumptions. As you know, this case is much more complicated than what these fourteen reasons imply. The website states where the main characters were at the time of Abby Borden's murder, which holds true if we believe that Abby was murdered around 9:30am. However, the location of these characters do not hold true in the case of Andrew Borden's murder. If we are to believe that Lizzie was in the barn looking for lead/tin/sinkers and eating pears, then Bridget was the only one in the house at the time Andrew was murdered. If we do not believe that Lizzie was in the barn, then both Lizzie and Bridget were in the house at the time Andrew was murdered. This still does not prove that Lizzie killed anyone or that an outsider was not involved in the murders.

There is no way Lizzie or anyone else could possibly have been convicted on just these fourteen reasons. Although, I think Lizzie probably killed both Abby and Andrew, there is absolutely no proof, whatsoever, that she actually killed them.

Professor Linder's sources are actually quite good, so I'd hold off on the tar and hen feathers at this point. He actually uses sources that are known to most of us. You might even recognize a few of 'em.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... iblio.html

doug65oh @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:32 pm wrote:... I'd hold off on the tar and hen feathers at this point. ...

Doug, I am not tar and hen feathering anyone. I have studied the fourteen reasons and found there are a few errors, some speculation and assumptions in them.

doug65oh @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:32 pm wrote:Professor Linder's sources are actually quite good, ... He actually uses sources that are known to most of us. You might even recognize a few of 'em. ...

I am aware of the sources for this website; I submitted the link for the sources in my post. I agree that this website's sources are good.



Robin, if I have offended you in any way, I truly apologize; it certainly was not my intention to do so.

In order for the murderer to be anyone except Lizzie calls for far too much coincidence to make any sense. An intruder not known to Lizzie simply wandering in off the street was far too selective; why leave Lizzie and Bridget alive? An intruder known to Lizzie would have been summoned to perform the deed on that day. There was no way of predicting that John Morse would be gone for any particular length of time. There would be no way to predict if Andrew would go on his usual rounds, he wasn't feeling well, or how long he would be gone. There was no way to know Bridget would spend an extended time period outdoors if killing her was to be avoided, and I think killing Bridget was pointedly avoided. Too much had to be known ahead of time to have someone come in on that particular day.

If Lizzie had someone else do the deed, she actually could have let them in at any time during the night. Yes, Uncle John was asleep across the hall, but it could still have been done. If she had counted on her Father staying home because he didn't feel well, that put a fly in the ointment, but still it could be done. With her knowledge, he could have hidden upstairs, taken care of Abbie, and once Bridget was up the stairs, what would it have taken to kill Andrew, maybe 5 minutes, to the cellar to clean up while Lizzie called to Bridget and sent her away, attention was on Bridget running across the street, out the cellar door, and away. Yes it would be a big risk, Uncle John could have caused a major problem, but he didn't.

I have edited my last two posts, in order to present myself in a more tactful manner. I agree that Professor Linder's sources are good, even though the 14 reasons that are listed on his website do contain a few errors, some speculation and assumptions.

I want to publicly apologize to Doug for my inappropriate response to his post, which I did remove when I edited my post. Doug I am truly sorry.

I also want to, again, apologize to Robin, if I offended you. As I stated in my above post - it certainly was not my intention to do so. I removed the parts of my original post and revised other parts to hopefully correct anything that may have been offensive. You may want to re-read my answer to your question. I like you, Robin, and I think you start some very good threads; some of your topics turn out to be quite interesting.

Apology accepted but wholly un-necessary. It's all good!

The one thing that keeps me from condemning Lizzie is her cleanliness.

However, if Andrew came home even as much as five to ten minutes earlier than what we think, she might have had enough time to clean up and appear to not be sweating, etc. If she did it, then there must be more time between when Andrew got the chop and she called out to Bridget.

I understand what you mean Bob, I've had alot of trouble with that part of it and some other things too. None of her friends were surprised by her lack of emotion after the murders, they all agreed that that was pretty much what they would expect from her........she just didn't show her emotions. We have no way of knowing what that kind of control cost her. Meaning stoic on the outside, yes, but what was she going through on the inside in order to maintain that? Was she falling apart? Were her thoughts a scramble? Outward appearances don't always reflect what is going on on the inside, especially something like that. We also don't know what she did after the lights went out and she was alone. Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is......if she'd have babbled and fainted, Bridget might have been in a whole lot of trouble.

Thank you, Doug!

S'alright!

It's alright. You're forgiven. Thanks.

Thank you, Robin!

I have looked at the fourteen reasons too, twinsrwe. And I have to agree with you. There are a few errors. I think it's much more of a difficult case than a few short reasons. But it did make for some good reading tho.

Well, you've all sent me curious to that site.
I saw problems with calling Abbie Lizzie's "Mother" right off the bat. That happened until they changed to step-mother farther along. I would think they would have gone back and changed those earlier references. There were problems with 4, 10, 11 and 14.
Just because the links were good doesn't mean those were the sources, does it?

I doubt Lizzie could have snuck someone upstairs the night before. I believe Uncle John testified that he slept with the guest bedroom door open. If that was his habit, I can't see Lizzie taking that chance.

snokkums @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:40 am wrote:I have looked at the fourteen reasons too, twinsrwe. And I have to agree with you. There are a few errors. I think it's much more of a difficult case than a few short reasons. But it did make for some good reading tho.

I think you will agree with me on this, Snokkums: Having the honor of being members of the Lizzie Borden Society forum has given us the opportunity to learn from the very best and most knowledgeable people on the Borden case. Speaking for myself, I have learned a ton of facts since I joined this forum, and therefore find it is quite easy to see errors within the information presented on other web sites. I am sure this is also true for you.

Wouldn't it be interesting to do a list of fourteen reason to be believe Lizzie murdered Abby and Andrew, using actual facts?

Kat @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:07 am wrote:Well, you've all sent me curious to that site.
I saw problems with calling Abbie Lizzie's "Mother" right off the bat. That happened until they changed to step-mother farther along. I would think they would have gone back and changed those earlier references. There were problems with 4, 10, 11 and 14.
Just because the links were good doesn't mean those were the sources, does it?

You're right, Kat. They have a couple of the best and most factual sources available listed:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/LizzieABorden.htm
&
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/

Unfortunately, they didn't use them to their advantage.

The police didn't seem interested in pursuing the case after Lizzie's acquittal, so I doubt that they thought anyone else was involved. I don't think Lizzie tried to clear her name if she was innocent, so she probably didn't think so, either! I know when I'm licked, if the authorities and Lizzie concur that it couldn't have been anyone else, who am I to question it?

from a profiling standpoint, all the indicators point to this crime being of a very PERSONAL nature. the method of the murders, the choice of weapon, the pattern of injuries, the location of the murders, it all points to a killer who was very personally invested in the deed, in the amount of hatred he/she/they had for this couple. yes, emotions were running deep when the killings occurred.

this was not some home invasion robbery gone bad. this was someone who knew, and was known by, abby and andrew. and i would even go a step further and say this was someone who knew (and was perhaps known by) either lizzie, bridget, or both. this was not just any ol' intruder, or the work of a raving lunatic (although i'm sure that an insanity defense was considered by the killer(s) if it came to that).

when you think of "if not lizzie, then who," also think in terms of motive - who stood to gain if andrew and abby were dead? not some run of the mill robber. family members who believed they would have inheritances, yes. or a person who believed that they had been so terribly wronged by the couple could have sought the ultimate revenge by killing them...but remember, both andrew AND abby would have had to be held equally responsible in the killer's mind for whatever "wrongdoing" had occurred. this was not the work of an irrate tenant or would be shop-keeper. and the killer evidentially did not hold bridget or lizzie responsible.

and there are those who think differently, but i am convinced that the earlier "burglary" in broad daylilght at the borden home when andrew and abby were away, as well as the mysterious "sickness" they were overcome with in the days before their deaths were the work of the person(s) who was ultimately responsible for their deaths. i cannot help but turn again to profiling and patterns of violence. the events leading up to the murders really follow a classic pattern of domestic violence and terroristic behavior where the killer is someone who shares a very close, intense and personal relationship with the victim(s).

this pattern of incidents also goes to prove that it was not by miracle or chance that lizzie and bridget were "spared" on aug 4th. the only people we can say for certain who were affected by the robbery and sickness/poisoning episodes were abby and andrew. it was their items that were disturbed and taken. to my knowledge, they were the only two people in the borden home that day that we know were ill. bridget and lizzie said they were, but is there any independent confirmation of that?

and so i sit, trying to come up with a culprit who would have had a very intense emotional relationship with the bordens, who would have been outraged at andrew AND abby, who would have not felt so about lizzie and bridget, who would have had something to gain from the deaths, who would have had to know the layout of the home so well that he/she/they would almost had to have been inside the borden home before, who would have been confident enough that they could "enter" and "escape" the home in broad daylight without attracting suspicion, who understood the habits and schedules of the occupants of that home intimately and was not thrown off when an unexpected visitor showed up...

...so "if not lizzie, then who?" - indeed!

Good summation!
I'm not quite sure this is a *classic pattern* tho (the daylight robbery and the potential poisoning attempt)- we must admit it remains unsolved satisfactorily- it's still a mystery.
There might be extended family members who could hate these people. It's a slim chance, but possible. We don't know everyone who might have motive.
But good points made, I'd say. Thanks.

Yes, sguthmann, great post!

Until some other evidence surfaces, directing us to another person, Lizzie appears to be the only viable suspect who meets most, if not all, the points you raise. It is very hard to imagine her not having some involvement.

Yes Squthmann, that was really good! But here's what I don't understand-----All of that written could and does apply to Bridget as well as Lizzie. There isn't one thing listed that doesn't. Except she (Bridget) is the only one who walked in and out of that house freely. She was out of lizzies sight everytime Lizzie was out of her's. We really don't know anything about Bridgets charactor, or her morales, or how she related to Abbie except for what she herself told. If they had a good relationship, you'd think Abbie would have let the window washing wait for a day, knowing that Bridget wasn't well. If Abbie was indeed the kind and thoughtful person she's made out to be, that she'd have let Bridget pass on the window washing till later. Uncle John heard Abbie tell Bridget to do the windows, so he was still there, she said she wasn't told to do them till around 9, and after he'd already left. So, what if still feeling poorly she went back in to ask Abbie if she couldn't wait to do the windows and was told to do it anyway. Andrew could have heard that exchange between the two of them, and that's the reason he had to be done away with. She could have heard Lizzie go out the side door, killed Andrew, ran back upstairs and cleaned herself up and waited for Lizzie to scream, cry out or whatever. Time wise, she had more time to get cleaned up then Lizzie did. Just a thought.........or two

Kat @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:49 am wrote:Good summation!
I'm not quite sure this is a *classic pattern* tho (the daylight robbery and the potential poisoning attempt)- we must admit it remains unsolved satisfactorily- it's still a mystery.
There might be extended family members who could hate these people. It's a slim chance, but possible. We don't know everyone who might have motive.
But good points made, I'd say. Thanks.

thanks, kat. just to clarify, when i referred to this case as exhibiting a "classic pattern" i was referrring to the escalation of increasingly personal attacks of violence/ terrorisism seen in domestic personal cause homicides of which the andrew and abby were, in my opinion, the targets. when investigating a homicide, its very important to go back days, even months, prior to the murder and take a look at what was going on: were there events that in hindsight fall in line with an escalating parttern of violence? i would argue that the prior robbery and "sickness" were examples of just that.

i understand that both of those incidents are officially "unsolved," and will remain so, but as i sit and play "armchair detective" with regard to the borden murders, and apply what techniques and theories are used by detectives working on homicides today, i cannot help but see a pattern of events that turns out to be pretty "classic" in terms of what the fbi categorizes as domestic personal cause homicides, and the perps of such crimes are usually family members or close associates (lovers, business partners, etc). as for further proof of why i take those earlier events into consideration in the context of this homicides, i can only call it a "gut feeling."

shakiboo @ Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:36 pm wrote:Yes Squthmann, that was really good! But here's what I don't understand-----All of that written could and does apply to Bridget as well as Lizzie. There isn't one thing listed that doesn't. Except she (Bridget) is the only one who walked in and out of that house freely. She was out of lizzies sight everytime Lizzie was out of her's. We really don't know anything about Bridgets charactor, or her morales, or how she related to Abbie except for what she herself told. If they had a good relationship, you'd think Abbie would have let the window washing wait for a day, knowing that Bridget wasn't well. If Abbie was indeed the kind and thoughtful person she's made out to be, that she'd have let Bridget pass on the window washing till later. Uncle John heard Abbie tell Bridget to do the windows, so he was still there, she said she wasn't told to do them till around 9, and after he'd already left. So, what if still feeling poorly she went back in to ask Abbie if she couldn't wait to do the windows and was told to do it anyway. Andrew could have heard that exchange between the two of them, and that's the reason he had to be done away with. She could have heard Lizzie go out the side door, killed Andrew, ran back upstairs and cleaned herself up and waited for Lizzie to scream, cry out or whatever. Time wise, she had more time to get cleaned up then Lizzie did. Just a thought.........or two

good points also! you're right, bridget has to be another prime suspect -- at least initially. in my opinion, at the very least, that girl knew more than she ever told to police or on the stand! but i just don't see the motive aspect being as strong for bridget as i do for lizzie. what did she gain by having the 2 old people out of the way? why not get rid of lizzie while she was at it, to be sure there would be no living witnesses? what was the precipating stressor that pushed bridget over the top? the window cleaning?

if i were handling that investigation nowadays, i'd have set bridget in an interrogation room until she broke and told all that she knew. i would have told her that she was looking like the prime suspect, maybe even tell her that lizzie was giving her up as the killer. i think had this been done, we would know today who killed those poor souls. but alas, it wasn't done. i think bridget wanted to say more, but was afraid. i think with a little more pushing, maybe playing a little more "hardball," she would have finally spilled the beans on whatever more she knew and never told.

There was also a missing key according to a conversation Abby had with Mrs. Bowen the Tuesday preceding the murders. Abby said something about "they" have taken my key. Andrew didn't need a second person, he might just demand the key. Bridget's job might be in jeopardy if she had been part of a key conspiracy. Unless Andrew was fond of practical jokes, this seems to leave Lizzie and Emma.

Don't you think it's strange that Bridget wasn't looked at more closely? Even the theft that took place in broad daylight could have pointed to her. The subtle poisoning could have been more easily done by the person serving the food. If it happend today I don't think she would have been handled quite the same way. I'd imagine servants had to bite their tongue's quite often. She said herself she wanted to leave before but Abbie talked her in to staying and let everyone think it was the girls who were the problem, but gave no real reason as to why and wasn't questioned about it in detail, was Lizzie questioned about it? Where servants are conserned they had to hide their feelings, had basically no rights and were expected to not have any. What a way for resentments to build, even if the employers were better then most. I just find it strange, the two that were in the house at the time and left living, one has every word and action looked at under a magnifying glass and the other, even though some of what she has said is not in agreement with some one else is taken at face value...ie Uncle John heard Abbie tell her she wanted the window's washed at breakfast, she said she was told to do the windows while Abbie was dusting the sitting room. Did no one look into that? If she really was told to do it while Abbie was dusting she could have been the last person to see her alive (of course) other then the killer. And how would Uncle John have heard it, he'd left by then. Okay, let the bashing begin....lol

Something must have caused Lizzie to come under greater scrutiny than Bridget early on. Bridget told authorities in the Witness Statements that she had gone to her room. Lizzie independently confirmed this. Bridget didn't know first hand where Lizzie was during this time, only what Lizzie told her. If Bridget was in her room, she wouldn't have known this first hand. Lizzie's story goes unsupported.

There may have been other considerations which kept Bridget from more serious consideration as a suspect. The question of motive was a big one. Lizzie's demeanor was another. I realize that she has the right to react in any way she wishes, but the authorities also have the right to think it odd. Maybe when all things are considered, Lizzie stood out as a suspect like a sore thumb, which would also tend to keep Bridget from suspicion.

Well, how do we know that Bridget wasn’t investigated more thoroughly? Much has been published, but there’s a fair bunch still out there, if you think about it – either being prepared for publication (as the last I knew the Hilliard papers were – or under seal on account of other issues related to legal ethics, attorney-client privilege, etc.)

See what I mean? There may still be some things out there that we’re unaware of. The police investigation in all probability went as far as they felt they needed to go insofar as Bridget was concerned.

Heard this somewhere before; "It wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father."

Sorry about that.... just couldn't resist.

Harry, that was good!

Yep that pretty much sums it up! lol I wish they'd hurry up with the Hilliard Papers, that would be( possibly) a real eye opener!

I think Bridget was investigated, the police dismissed her. But, I think you are right Sguthman, what would she gain by killing two old people? Why kill the cash cow? Andrew was paying her better than most maids of the day were making.

As for the way Bridget was, from everything I have ever read or heard about her, she was an upright person, who did go to Mass on Sundays as such. As for her relationship with Abby, from what I have read, it was good. I read somewhere, probably on this site, that Bridget was planning on quitting but Abby talked her into staying, stateing I would have no one to talk to;I would be so lonely.

That might be just conjecture, but it's something I remember. So, with all that, Bridget doesn't seem to be a likely canadate for murder.

I think there can be considered a pattern, but maybe I'm thinking of the usage of the words *classic pattern* differently than you. The daylight robbery was a nuisance, and the proposed poisoning attempt was not proven. I thought these two things were unusal, (and one might not even have occurred)- and not classic- more that they were odd. Maybe I am considering the times they lived in. I'm not convinced these were escalations- but I can see how they might be considered that way.
If the sickness was from bad food, and the robbery was by a robber, these incidents might not be any pattern at all.
There was some information that there had been other robberies in the area around the same time.
(Anyone recall the source for that?)
It does look like things point to a member of the household, but also you would investigate to the best of your ability (and probably better than some of those police at the time) these other possibilities.

I can't think of a motive for Bridget to be the killer- at least not because of washing windows.
Did she say she didn't want to do the windows and Mrs. Borden made her?

I have to ask- please refresh my memory- did Bridget always go to Mass on Sundays?

twinsrwe @ Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:46 pm wrote:

snokkums @ Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:40 am wrote:I have looked at the fourteen reasons too, twinsrwe. And I have to agree with you. There are a few errors. I think it's much more of a difficult case than a few short reasons. But it did make for some good reading tho.

I think you will agree with me on this, Snokkums: Having the honor of being members of the Lizzie Borden Society forum has given us the opportunity to learn from the very best and most knowledgeable people on the Borden case. Speaking for myself, I have learned a ton of facts since I joined this forum, and therefore find it is quite easy to see errors within the information presented on other web sites. I am sure this is also true for you.

Wouldn't it be interesting to do a list of fourteen reason to be believe Lizzie murdered Abby and Andrew, using actual facts?

Yes, I have learned alot from this forum. Sometimes even been corrected on a few things; people have been helpful in telling which is the truth and which is rumor. There is alot of crazy stuff out there about this case.

snokkums @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:49 pm wrote:... There is alot of crazy stuff out there about this case.

Ya, got that right, Snokkums!

I think the craziest thing that I ever read was a newspaper article from the Lizzie Borden sourcebook stating that because the weather so hot, thats what killed them. The hot weather axed them to death! That's the craziest article I have ever read! LOL!