Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I remember hearing a "SUSPENSE" Old Time Radio episode back in the 1940's where they recreated the murders...and had Lizzie hide the ax behind a loose brick in the furnace flue. She put an apron full of blood splatter and the ax there, until the 'heat was off' I thought that was a good theory...Emma was in on the whole thing, but Lizzie had her go away to establish an alibi so that only one of them had the chance of being convicted.

For me the murder weapon was most probably taken away by the true murderer, an intruder. This is even the simplest solution to explain the weapon’s being not found and the absence of blood on Lizzie’s cloth or body.

In the 1913 interview (if it was not a fabrication), Emma said that she was convinced for Lizzie’s innocence because the weapon had not been found. Many think her thought is weak, but I think she was right. Emma knew much more better her family house than anyone of us.

I've not decided if Lizzie was guilty, but an intruder not of the household seems all but impossible to me. The timeline between Andrew arriving home and the police receiving the call is 1/2 hr. Between him arriving home and Lizzie's first discovery 15min. Mrs. Borden in all likelihood was killed at least an hour before him based on coagulation of blood. I can't see an outsider killing Mrs. Borden, hanging around a house for an hour where there is a daughter, a maid, an Uncle who could come home any time, a sister who could return... Just doesn't make sense. Killers don't linger where an alarm could bring police down on them. If the original target of the 'stranger' was Mr. Borden, and he was found not at home, I doubt the killer would lurk upstairs for an hour waiting for him. Robbery was not a motive, "heat of the moment passion" was not the motive. I have wondered about the forensic evidence of Mrs. Borden's blood though. The difference in temp from downstairs and upstairs, as well as other factors could speed coagulation some...I can only accept the pathological findings that her killing was 'some time' before his.

Good post, Possum. Not only blood coagulation, but digestion of food in the stomach was used to determine approx. time of death. Andrew's stomach was virtually empty...Abby's still contained partially digested food.

I agree with everything you said.

PossumPie wrote:I've not decided if Lizzie was guilty, but an intruder not of the household seems all but impossible to me.

I will never permit myself to use the word "impossible" discussing the Borden case.

Thanks NancyDrew, I forgot to mention the food... I love your name btw...when I was a teen, I read all of the Hardy Boys books...then I read many of the Nancy Drews also...I know, being a guy that was probably not cool, but I loved them as much as the Hardy Boys Mysteries...I especially liked "Lilac Inn"
Franz, I didn't say "impossible" but "all but..." I know, a nit picky difference but statistically speaking, I should have said highly improbably. I read the heart wrenching interview Lizzie gave while in custody, and I find myself wishing she wasn't "involved" but putting all of the absolute known facts in a time line, then looking at the "Probably true" things, then at her own admissions, contradictions, fabrications...I lean towards her involvement. Remember the Triangle... who had the means, motive, and opportunity?

I don't think an intruder did the murders. Abby and Andrew were killed an hour an 15 minutes apart. The intruder would have had to hide somewhere. and why only kill the parents and not kill Lizzie and Bridget? Those two would have witnesses.