Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Hello, I've been absent from the forum for awhile, but am glad to be back.

Let's assume that Lizzie was guilty & that she wore a dress while committing the horrible deeds. Also, let's speculate that Andrew was never intended to be killed, only Abby. Lizzie may have thought that it was probably a safe bet that Abby would be at home that morning just as it was a safe bet that Andrew would be going about his usual morning rounds - thus out of the house - thus he was never intended to be a victim.

So, there's Lizzie, hacking away at her stepmother, the blood spatter staining her dress in the process. She disposes of the bloodied dress (wood stove, furnace or simply just hid it) & then changes into a clean dress. She's now ready to establish her alibi by going downtown & therefore away from the murder house. But, her plans are foiled when her father unexpectantly returns early. Although Andrew was never intended to be killed, Lizzie realizes her alibi is blown out of the water & now she has no choice but to kill her father as well. So, she kills him, bloodying yet another dress that, too, will have to be disposed of.

Again, I don't believe Andrew was ever an original target because how could Lizzie have known that he would've returned home earlier than usual? It was just by chance that he cut his morning errands short because he wasn't feeling well.

But, another thing bothers me about this scenario. Why would it take Lizzie almost 1 1/2 hrs to dispose of the first dress, change into a clean one & then go downtown? You think she would've made haste to get out of that house - especially with Abby's freshly-butchered body lying upstairs in the guestroom. If Lizzie had killed Abby around 9:30, I'd think she'd be out of that house no later than 10:00, even sooner. I know I'd be like a bat out of hell trying to get away from the crime scene as quickly as possible. I surely wouldn't linger around for 90 minutes - especially with the maid hovering around outside.

Also, let's say she burned the one dress. Wouldn't the smell of burnt fabric have lingered in the house when Bridget came back inside & later when Mrs. Churchill & other people arrived? Or, if Lizzie had intended to take the stained dress WITH her downtown & dispose of it there, then had to backtrack when her father surprised her by coming home early, then what did she do w/the dress then? Obviously, she had to hide it & hide it very well because the police never found it. And we're talking a full-cut dress here, not just a small rag or piece of cloth. How could she have hidden it so well & for so long?

This also makes me think of the murder weapon. If Abby was supposed to be the ONLY victim, then would Lizzie have tried to destroy the hatchet (fire?) or simply hide it? If she had destroyed it & then realized that she had to kill her father after all & with the original murder weapon gone, would she have found another hatchet in the house or a different weapon, like a kitchen meat clever?

So, in the end, did she have dispose of or hide 2 dresses & 2 weapons? The possibilities give me a headache :)

Of course, this is all just speculation - but I'd like to hear what others think.

First off, I don't think there was ever any conclusive proof that Andrew returned home earlier than usual. I don't remember any testimony or evidence ever being presented to that effect. I think maybe this has become one of those myths surrounding the case that has become accepted as fact. I would like to find any evidence that points to the fact that Andrew returned home in any of the source documents concerning the case. I would like anyone who can show evidence to this affect to share it because I have never run across any accounts supporting it, other than in newspapers and books written on the case.If this is true I'd be very interested in having the evidence to support it so I'd know for sure it was fact. So if anyone can point me in that direction I'd really appreciate it. I don't consider these accurate sources. I think Andrew was always an intended victim. Because I asked myself what did Lizzie really gain with Abby being gone?


Why would Lizzie only kill Abby and leave Andrew alive to keep her stuck in the house on Second Street? She would not have been moving into Maplecroft with Andrew alive, or going to see any opera's, entertaining people such as Nance O' Neil.. etc. She never had up until after the elder Borden's were disposed of, and I don't think she ever would while either of them were alive. Her trip abroad seems a singular occurrence in pre murder life.

But the idea of how and where she hid the evidence so well police didn't find it has always intrigued me. No bloody clothing, no weapon, no blood on her person or anywhere in the house. How did she dispose of these? not only from police scrutiny, but from Emma as well. Or Bridget. Or Uncle John. And without ever leaving the house. This was probably something she had planned ahead of time I think. Burning the dress in the woodstove might not have produced that rank of a smell. I'm sure it would've smelled, but maybe not as pungently as everyone might think. When Lizzie did burn the paint stained dress she did so in the stove in the kitchen while police were standing outside. If the smell was that noticeable I'm not sure she'd have risked it with police so near.

But lets say Andrew was not an intended target, even though in my opinion he was. Why would Lizzie hang around? I have always given Lizzie credit for not pointing the finger of blame at any innocent people. Bridget was still in the house. If Andrew was not an intended target, then she would not have wanted to leave Bridget holding the bag.

Lizzie may have retained a hatchet and dress used to murder Abby with the intent of disposing of them if and when she left the house to establish an alibi. She may also have hidden a hatchet and dress someplace known only to her, with the intent of disposing of them at a later date, and this could also be after she killed Andrew. This would almost have to be somewhere inside the house because Lizzie was either under close scrutiny or in police custody after the murders.

It may be that only hiding a hatchet was necessary if she wore the Bedford cord dress during the murders. I don't know how much blood would have gotten on the dress as a result of the murders, I can't find a reference anywhere for that information. It is remarkable how little blood was present, other than on or beneath the victims, at either of the murder scenes. Most of what was present seems to be cast-off from the hatchet because it describes an arc of swing while using the hatchet.

There is nothing in the source documents that I can recall that touches upon Andrew returning home earlier than his normal time.

There is this that appeared in the New Bedford Evening Standard:

"THE SISTER'S THEORY.

Think Mr. and Mrs. Borden Were Killed
by Some Strange Man.

Fall River, Aug. 29. --- Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie have a theory in regard to the murder of their parents. It is a very unsatisfactory one, but it is, nevertheless, a theory. Lizzie and Emma and Mr. Morse are absolutely certain that Lizzie did not commit the crime. They think that some strange man killed Mr. and Mrs. Borden. They state that Mr. Borden always received his business callers between 11 and 12 o'clock in the morning. He always answered the door bell between these hours, they say. They think that the assassin entered the house between 9 and 10 o'clock, probably, and that he came in search of Mr. Borden. ..."

His arrival time of 10:45 supports this statement allowing him a few minutes to refresh himself before receiving anyone.

However, there was no known scheduled caller that morning or at least none that was willing to come forward.

Hi, I must have misread something along the line then. I was always under the impression that Andrew returned earlier than usual that fateful day because he hadn't been feeling well. If that wasn't the case - if he had returned to the house during his normal time - well, then that puts a new perspective on the possible sequence of events. Darn - just when I thought I had something interesting there :)

I've always heard that Andrew skipped a board meeting at a bank that morning because he didn't feel good. I think there is a source for it. It may have been in the newspapers.

That would have made him unexpectedly early on that particular day.

I wonder : what would have happened had Uncle John, and Andrew arrived back home at the same time ? (closer to noon) Would Lizzie have already left for the dress goods, or general shopping ? Would Uncle John have had a reason to go back up to the room ? Would Lizzie have told the maid to tell Andrew that Abby "had a note, and went out" ? I ponder the possibilities. Let's say Lizzie had gone to town, and returned just as B set the table for more mutton. Who would have discovered Abby ?

Maybe Lizzie actually killed her father and stuck around the house afterwards to protect Bridget, as weird as that may sound. If she killed Abby and then left, Bridget would possibly be arrested as the only culprit. Lizzie realized that if she did stick around, then her father would blame her or Bridget for the death, so she killed him and then again did not disappear because she knew the police would see Bridget had been the only one in the house.
However, someone made a good point somewhere about Lizzie knowing if she did not kill her father too she would still be in the same oppressive situation financially that she'd always been in. This all gives me a headache too.

Angel @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:24 am wrote:Maybe Lizzie actually killed her father and stuck around the house afterwards to protect Bridget, as weird as that may sound. If she killed Abby and then left, Bridget would possibly be arrested as the only culprit. Lizzie realized that if she did stick around, then her father would blame her or Bridget for the death, so she killed him and then again did not disappear because she knew the police would see Bridget had been the only one in the house.
However, someone made a good point somewhere about Lizzie knowing if she did not kill her father too she would still be in the same oppressive situation financially that she'd always been in. This all gives me a headache too.

I agree that Lizzie neither wanted to kill Bridget, or implicate her in the murders. She went to great lengths not to implicate anyone. I think the only person she said even was not on good terms with her father was Hiram Harrington.

It's my theory that Andrew was always an intended target. Because what did Lizzie really gain by killing only Abby? She'd still be stuck in the house on Second street in no better situation than she was before. She also had the risk of Andrew suspecting her, and possibly disinheriting her. She would've been one of the only people in the house with his dead wife. Sure if she wanted his money she could wait for him to die, but that could've been next week, or ten years from now. She just wouldn't know, and she was already in her thirties.

I'm not sure if Abby's part would've went to the girls after she died. I always thought that Abby's part of the money would've went to her people if Andrew died first. That's why Abby had to die first. This was a contemporary theory which was presented. But the girls being as spiteful as they were didn't want Abby or any of her people to enjoy one cent in my opinion. And Lizzie wanted the money so they both had to die.