Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Questioned by Knowlton, Lizzie, at a certain point, said: “He (Andrew) said he should lie down. I asked him if he thought he should have a nap. He said he should try to. I asked him if he wanted the window left the way it was or if he felt a draught.”

According to what Lizzie said, the window, at that moment, was very probably open. But I could even not care whether it was open or closed, because in both cases Lizzie’s question could demonstrate her innocence:

1. If the window were closed, and if Lizzie were the killer, why did she want to ask her father such a question? The window’s being closed should be more favorable for the killing that she had in mind to commit in just one or two minutes.

2. If the window were open, and if Lizzie were the killer, so she asked her father such a question not for his health (Do you feel a draught?), but for a criminal intention (as I said above, a closed window could be more favorable for the killing.) But in this case, the guilty Lizzie, knowing very well her criminal intention, why did she mention this particular detail to Knowlton? She should have known very well that such a mention could draw more suspicion on her. Why did she want to run such a risk unnecessarily?

No matter whether the window was open or closed, Lizzie’s question, just as the guest room door’s being open when the body of Abby was discovered, could demonstrate Lizzie’s innocence (at that moment she was answering to Knowlton's questions as honestly as possible).

I know it was hot that day, so maybe she might have wanted to get some air in the house. I think too, if Lizzie "did it", having the window open could give the suggestion that an intruder got in thru the window.
Also, too having the window open could throw the suspicion away from her, as too telling the police that. Who would kill their father if they were concerned with the father's well being.

"Do you feel a draft?" REALLY??? It was in the mid 90's by then...a draft??? I would think anyone would be seeking out a breath of any air. Lizzie also said she watched her Father take off his shoes and coat, and put on slippers and a smoker jacket...yet he was found in congress shoes and his coat.

Okay, dumb question, but did house windows have screens back then?

I don't recall any testimony by Bridget about removing screens to wash the windows.

Yes, the windows did in fact have screens.

From Bridget Sullivan's Testimony at the Preliminary Hearing.

Q. You saw Mr. Borden when he came back?
A. Yes Sir.

Page 22

Q. What did he do then when he came back?
A. He let the window down, it was up with the screen in. He took a chair and sat down near the window
with a book or paper in his hand.

Q. Which window was that?
A. The sitting room.

Thank you very much for your replies, NancyDrew and Allen. In fact I didn’t have in mind the screens. I thought that the window’s being closed could diminish the risk that the victim’s eventual screams could be heard from outside.

PossumPie wrote:"Do you feel a draft?" REALLY??? It was in the mid 90's by then...a draft??? I would think anyone would be seeking out a breath of any air.

A draught for a 72-year-old man who was to have a nap? Possumpie, are you joking?

Bridget put at least one window back up in the dining room and in the sitting room after she was finished washing them . And she put the screens back in. So Lizzie was not asking Andrew if he wanted them left closed, but rather if he wanted them left open. So "Do you feel a draught?" would mean did he think it was to drafty with the windows open. On a hot day like that why in the world would he not want to feel a 'draught' as he was napping? Everyone who was at the house that day testified to it being a hot day. Why would she offer to close the windows to cut off any drafts of air on a hot day? About the slipper and the smoking jacket, those were my sentiments exactly also. He was not even found wearing them.

Allen wrote: Why would she offer to close the windows to cut off any drafts of air on a hot day?

In your opinion, why? Because Lizzie was the killer? If so, wh did she mention to Knowlton her "offer"? Her offer could draw suspicion on her, couldn't it? So, being herself the killer, knowing her criminal intention of that moment, why did Lizzie tell this particular detail to Knowlton?

But if Lizzie were innocent, it should be more easy to understand Lizzie's words: they were a demonstration of the care and the kindness of a good daughter. Even that day was a very hot one, a draught could be dangerous to a 72-year-old man who was having a nap.

If Lizzie wanted to appear innocent, regardless of actual innocence or guilt, she would portray herself as attentive to Andrew. Lizzie's uncle Hiram Harrington thought the attentiveness was out of character for Lizzie.

From a medical standpoint, temperatures in the mid to high 90s are more dangerous to an old person than a "draft" That was and old wives tale that drafts were dangerous. I'm not implying that she was lying or not...just clearing up a medical point.

Back in the day when I was a kid we thought having windows open on a hot day meant it would be more likely to cool the house. Now I know (if you don't have AC) to keep the place shut up with curtains drawn.

It is my understanding that Lizzie asked her Father if he wanted the blinds closed to keep him out of the sun. It is also interesting that Lizzie claims to have been wearing a hat when she supposedly went to the barn and came back before finding Father. Hyman Lubinsky said the woman he saw in the yard that day was not wearing a hat and it was not Bridget who he had seen before. He noted she was wearing a dark colored dress. Could Lizzie be in the barn to retreive the murder weapon to do away with Andrew at that time?

Where did you get the hat information....I can't remember reading about a hat.

Aamartin wrote:Back in the day when I was a kid we thought having windows open on a hot day meant it would be more likely to cool the house. Now I know (if you don't have AC) to keep the place shut up with curtains drawn.

My grandparents never had AC and they closed all the windows and curtains during the day, and opened them at night. Their house was rarely uncomfortable.

It is in Lizzie's inquest testimony. She claimed to have come in and laid down her hat before finding her father.

PossumPie wrote:

Aamartin wrote:Back in the day when I was a kid we thought having windows open on a hot day meant it would be more likely to cool the house. Now I know (if you don't have AC) to keep the place shut up with curtains drawn.

My grandparents never had AC and they closed all the windows and curtains during the day, and opened them at night. Their house was rarely uncomfortable.

The temperature gradient is always from hot to cold, cold is the norm, heat is transient. Opening the windows at night lets the heat out and closing the windows during the day keeps the heat out. Some forced air furnaces have a summer switch. This allows the furnace to push air from the basement through the ducts and into the house.

Allen wrote:It is in Lizzie's inquest testimony. She claimed to have come in and laid down her hat before finding her father.

Thanks for the info...I couldn't find it anywhere!

As a sidebar, it seems like alot of people got sick and threw up in the the yards back then, Bridet, Ellen Eagan, slop being thrown out, yuk! I have dogs and have to eliminate poop everyday, what about the horse crap? I can envision a very unsanitary environment! One would think people would remove their shoes before tracking all that muck into the households.

Smudgeman wrote:As a sidebar, it seems like alot of people got sick and threw up in the the yards back then, Bridet, Ellen Eagan, slop being thrown out, yuk! I have dogs and have to eliminate poop everyday, what about the horse crap? I can envision a very unsanitary environment! One would think people would remove their shoes before tracking all that muck into the households.

Imagine the large cities where people dumped their slop pails out of the window...no wonder there were so many Plagues...

I have often wondered if Lizzie didn't lure Abby up to the guest room somehow so she could kill her. Do we really know for sure why Abby was up there? Lizzie also said she advised Andrew that he should lay down on the sofa if he felt sick. Laying down is what made him an easier target. He didn't have to be asleep. He just had to have his eyes closed so he did not see it coming. Once that ax was in motion it was too late. The first blow killed him. I wonder why Lizzie was so solicitous of her father when it's been said this was not the nature of their relationship. I also wonder if she was not normally so inclined to be nice to her father why she ever gave him that ring he wore on his finger?

From The Witness Statements page 2, the notes of John Fleet taken August 4,1892 :

Saw Lizzie A. Borden in bedroom on same floor, was sitting with Minister Buck on lounge. Asked her what she knew of these murders. She said that she knew nothing further than her father came in about 10.30 or 10.45 A. M. and that he seemed to be quite feeble, and she helped him, and advised him to lay down on the lounge, which he did.

Two little things, in my opinion, could demonstrate Lizzie’s attentiveness and kindness towards other people:

1. When Lizzie wanted Dr. Bowen to telegraph to Emma, “she wished him not to tell the worst, if he could help it, for the old lady where Emma was visiting was feeble, she had better not have the shock” (Mrs. Churchill’s Inquest testimony, p. 129).

2. Mr. Sawyer testified: “While I was there the story was going around with regard to a Portugee or some foreigner that was working on the farm. Miss Alice Russell came to me and said Miss Lizzie Borden was very anxious that story should be suppressed, because she said he was a very nice man, and a very old and tired servant in the family, and she was deeply concerned about it.” (Inquest testimony, p. 140).

Lizzie, in those circumstances, could have such thoughts towards that “old lady” in Fairhaven and that “very old and tired servant”, and the same woman named Lizzie, in that same morning, had killed ferociously her stepmother and her father? Highly unlikely for me. On the contrary, I think her thoughts were coherent with her behaviours towards her father in that morning: her helping him to be more comfortable for the nap, her slowly speaking to a sick and old man, and her tender question: “Father, do you want the window left the way it is?”

If Lizzie were the murderess, she could not have foreseen the people’s suspicion about that old servant in the farm, so her reaction should have been spontaneous. Her attentiveness for that old lady in Fairhaven could have been feint in order to give a (false) good impression to others. But I wonder, if Lizzie had been so careful in this much less important detail while preparing her murder plan, how could she have fabricated that so stupid alibi testimony and that not less stupid note story – things much more important to save her life? Highly unlikely, highly unlikely for me.

Murderers can kill and then go back to leading normal lives. Most of the known serial killers did not walk around acting like monsters outside of the moments they chose to kill a victim. Many lived their lives doing normal activities like getting married and raising children. Some were also animal lovers. It's been said by people that knew many of the serial killers that they were the one person you would least expect to be capable of violence. Dennis Rader was elected president of the Congregational Council at the same church he had been a member of for over 30 years. He was also a cub scout leader. Ted Bundy once worked at a crisis center taking calls on a suicide hotline. His job was to convince people not to kill themselves. John Wayne Gacy dressed up as Pogo the clown to entertain at children's parties. There is also no evidence besides Lizzie's word that she helped Andrew get comfortable on the couch. She also claims to have helped him remove the shoes that were found still on his feet.

I do find it interesting that she never tried to blame anyone else for the crimes. It's not indicative proof of her innocence, in my opinion. Because she never seemed interested in searching to find any killer either.

Allen, Lizzie, if she did it, was only an amateur killer, not a serial killer who gets used to kill, who has the killing as a part of his / her life.

Except those few known facts, we have no certainty to say nothing about Lizzie case. In my opinion, it is much more probable that an innocent Lizzie had those so human and compassianate thoughts towards that "old lady" in Fairhaven and that “very old and tired servant”, than a guilty Lizzie who had just barbarically killed her stepmother and her father.

Allen wrote: There is also no evidence besides Lizzie's word that she helped Andrew get comfortable on the couch. She also claims to have helped him remove the shoes that were found still on his feet.

Yes, Allen, all we have is only her own testimony. But, in your opinion, why would Lizzie tell such a lie (helping Andrew remove the shoes)? This lie was not only useless, but also harmful to herself. I prefer to think that Lizzie had more than one time helped her father to be more comfortable after he returned home at noon, and Lizzie confused what she actually did another day with those she actually did on August 4th.

Franz wrote:Allen, Lizzie, if she did it, was only an amateur killer, not a serial killer who gets used to kill, who has the killing as a part of his / her life.

Except those few known facts, we have no certainty to say nothing about Lizzie case. In my opinion, it is much more probable that an innocent Lizzie had those so human and compassianate thoughts towards that "old lady" in Fairhaven and that “very old and tired servant”, than a guilty Lizzie who had just barbarically killed her stepmother and her father.

No killer starts out an experienced killer. There is a first time for everyone.

Allen wrote:

Franz wrote:Allen, Lizzie, if she did it, was only an amateur killer, not a serial killer who gets used to kill, who has the killing as a part of his / her life.

Except those few known facts, we have no certainty to say nothing about Lizzie case. In my opinion, it is much more probable that an innocent Lizzie had those so human and compassianate thoughts towards that "old lady" in Fairhaven and that “very old and tired servant”, than a guilty Lizzie who had just barbarically killed her stepmother and her father.

No killer starts out an experienced killer. There is a first time for everyone.

Right, Allen, the point is just here! Could Lizzie have been so "professional", so experienced, so brilliant, so apparently innocent after her very first performance? Highly unlikely, highly unlikely for me.

I am not getting your point. How did Lizzie act so "apparently innocent"? Some officers remarked that her behavior actually caused them to suspect her. You suspect John Morse but his actions never aroused any suspicion at all from just about anyone. Wouldn't he have also been a first time killer? You're saying John Morse was a brilliant professional killer?

Nobody ever acted in a way to arouse suspicion accept Lizzie. I don't see anything about the murders that indicate a brilliant mind had to be behind it. I said before that every killer has a first time. And no killer starts out an experienced killer. Nobody noticed any strange behavior on the part of Ted Bundy when he started killing people. He didn't go around acting like he just killed someone to arouse suspicion. He didn't act like a monster. Many people found him charming. So I'm not seeing why Lizzie had to act guilty. I'd think that would be the one thing she wanted to avoid. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to figure that out.

I do not believe for a minute that Lizzie helped Andrew get comfortable on the couch. But, if she did, there is also another way to look at it. She was trying to get Andrew comfortable on the couch because that is where she wanted to kill him.

I think Lizzie was babbling somewhat.... She couldn't tell the truth so she was making stuff up... sinker/fix screen/shoes/Abby's 'note'.....

If you tell the truth you don't have to remember the many lies

Allen wrote:I am not getting your point. How did Lizzie act so "apparently innocent"? Some officers remarked that her behavior actually caused them to suspect her. You suspect John Morse but his actions never aroused any suspicion at all from just about anyone. Wouldn't he have also been a first time killer? You're saying John Morse was a brilliant professional killer?

Nobody ever acted in a way to arouse suspicion accept Lizzie. I don't see anything about the murders that indicate a brilliant mind had to be behind it. I said before that every killer has a first time. And no killer starts out an experienced killer. Nobody noticed any strange behavior on the part of Ted Bundy when he started killing people. He didn't go around acting like he just killed someone to arouse suspicion. He didn't act like a monster. Many people found him charming. So I'm not seeing why Lizzie had to act guilty. I'd think that would be the one thing she wanted to avoid. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to figure that out.

I do not believe for a minute that Lizzie helped Andrew get comfortable on the couch. But, if she did, there is also another way to look at it. She was trying to get Andrew comfortable on the couch because that is where she wanted to kill him.

Allen, I was referring obviously to those two details that I mentioned: Lizzie's preoccupation for the old lady and the old servant. I think it is highly unlikely that Lizzie, if she did it, could have had such thoughts.

Yes, many things could be interpretated in opposite ways. You can certainly think that Lizzie helped her father to be more comfortable in order to kill him.

Aamartin wrote:I think Lizzie was babbling somewhat.... She couldn't tell the truth so she was making stuff up... sinker/fix screen/shoes/Abby's 'note'.....

If you tell the truth you don't have to remember the many lies

Lizzie, undoubtedly, told a number of lies. But I think some lies she told them because of incorrect memory, some others, she told them intentionally but not because she murdered Abby and Andrew, she could have told them for saving herself from that embarrassed situation.

You said, "if you tell the truth...", right! If Lizzie, like Bridget, was only chatting with the Kelly's girl when his father was killed, she certainly needn't to lie, but if she, unfortunately, was doing something (the truth) that she could not confess at any price? She just couldn't tell the truth! About her whereabouts when Abby was killed, Lizzie could have lied either, because, being suspected for the murders, she could have placed herself as far as possible from the guest room for those few minutes before Abby's murder.

The testimonies of others are full of expressions like: “I don’t know”, “I can’t remember”, “I could not tell”, “I haven’t any idea”, “I can’t tell it in order”, “I have a very confused idea”, etc. etc. If other persons could have had a confused memory, why must Lizzie have had remembered all the details of the events?

The majority of those statements of "I don't know," "I can't remember, "I could not tell", and "I haven't any idea," were given at trial after almost a year had passed since the incident. The murders were in August of 1892 and the trial started in June of 1893. That's a nice gap. I'm not sure how clear my own memory would be almost a year later. As I said in another thread, memories fade over time, not the other way around. Those type of answers were not given so often at the inquest. Many of those answers that were given at the inquest were about either fixing the time that something happened because they had not looked at any clock, or in answering something the person may not have witnessed themselves, or had not taken the time to notice. Like what color Lizzie's dress was. Memories fade over time. Lizzie's inconsistent statements appeared that day after a couple of hours. There is a big difference. Her memory had no time to fade. In fact, it should have been very fresh. It should have been the most accurate account she could have given.

And I think the two statements are irrelevant and prove nothing.

Allen wrote:And I think the two statements are irrelevant and prove nothing.

I agree, there is no correlation between the two statements and an ability to commit murder.

Allen wrote:The majority of those statements of "I don't know," "I can't remember, "I could not tell", and "I haven't any idea," were given at trial after almost a year had passed since the incident. The murders were in August of 1892 and the trial started in June of 1893. That's a nice gap. I'm not sure how clear my own memory would be almost a year later. As I said in another thread, memories fade over time, not the other way around. Those type of answers were not given so often at the inquest. Many of those answers that were given at the inquest were about either fixing the time that something happened because they had not looked at any clock, or in answering something the person may not have witnessed themselves, or had not taken the time to notice. Like what color Lizzie's dress was. Memories fade over time. Lizzie's inconsistent statements appeared that day after a couple of hours. There is a big difference. Her memory had no time to fade. In fact, it should have been very fresh. It should have been the most accurate account she could have given.

You can find these expressions many times even in the inquest testimonies.

Allen wrote:And I think the two statements are irrelevant and prove nothing.

For me, yes. I certianly don't say they could prove something, but in my opinion, they could demonstrate something.

Yes, I stated that they were given at the inquest. But not with the frequency they were given at trial. Check it out for yourself. And if you look at the questions that were asked when witnesses gave those answers at the inquest they were most often to the types of questions that I stated above. About the time things happened which they could not tell with accuracy because they had no clock to look at. About things they may not have witnessed for themselves so they of course could not tell. Or about things they took no notice of to tell of in the first place. And sometimes in saying I don't know it didn't even mean I don't know. Statements along the lines of "I don't know but that I gave it to her." It just means she gave it to her. It was a way of speaking. Lizzie not only start saying I don't know that day, she gave conflicting statements. Which is also something the witnesses did not do. None of the other witnesses gave conflicting statements. All of their statements remained consistent except for the things they forgot almost a year later. Their stories never changed, the details just became less clear in their minds.

Allen wrote:Yes, I stated that they were given at the inquest. But not with the frequency they were given at trial. Check it out for yourself. And if you look at the questions that were asked when witnesses gave those answers at the inquest they were most often to the types of questions that I stated above. About the time things happened which they could not tell with accuracy because they had no clock to look at. About things they may not have witnessed for themselves so they of course could not tell. Or about things they took no notice of to tell of in the first place. And sometimes in saying I don't know it didn't even mean I don't know. Statements along the lines of "I don't know but that I gave it to her." It just means she gave it to her. It was a way of speaking. Lizzie not only start saying I don't know that day, she gave conflicting statements. Which is also something the witnesses did not do. None of the other witnesses gave conflicting statements. All of their statements remained consistent except for the things they forgot almost a year later. Their stories never changed, the details just became less clear in their minds.

I will post a thread after as reply.

Franz wrote:The testimonies of others are full of expressions like: “I don’t know”, “I can’t remember”, “I could not tell”, “I haven’t any idea”, “I can’t tell it in order”, “I have a very confused idea”, etc. etc. If other persons could have had a confused memory, why must Lizzie have had remembered all the details of the events?

Because Lizzie's life was on the line, not the other witnesses' lives.

Yooper wrote:

Franz wrote:The testimonies of others are full of expressions like: “I don’t know”, “I can’t remember”, “I could not tell”, “I haven’t any idea”, “I can’t tell it in order”, “I have a very confused idea”, etc. etc. If other persons could have had a confused memory, why must Lizzie have had remembered all the details of the events?

Because Lizzie's life was on the line, not the other witnesses' lives.

Yooper, "on the line" means in danger? Even though, Lizzie, as a miserable human being like others, couldn't super her limits, we couldn't expect her to remember all correctly. Omissions, errors, inaccuracies that others could commit, she could commit as well. In addition, we must consider that 1) she was the most shocked person, 2) she was the unique person under the pressure of being suspected, 3) she was receiving the morphine treatment.

In my opinion, when we consider a particular point of the Borden case, we should begin from the presumption (of law) that Lizzie was innocent, without being influenced by our own personal conclusion. Under the presumption that she was innocent, we will see if we can find a reasonable explanation for a particular point. For example, the confusions that her testimony contains should not surprise us, because it should be normal that she couldn’t remember all the details, because all other testimonies are the same (I admit that in her testimony there are a number of lies). Being alone at the house Lizzie didn’t worry about her life, it could seem suspicious, but all other persons who were living the tragic moments together with her didn’t worry for her safety neither. Lizzie didn’t think of calling the police immediately, but no other person had the very first reaction to call the police. We have to deny the presumption only when we can’t find in any way a reasonable explanation for some detail. The note story is one of the most important evidence against Lizzie. My explanation is that the note was invented by the killers and then, was found by the executive killer in the pocket of Abby and by him taken away, that’s why the note was never found afterwards, and no one came forward as author or messenger of the note. Whoever convinced for Lizzie’s guilt would find my conjecture highly unlikely, but I don’t think my conjecture is impossible (just as I think it is possible that Lizzie quickly cleaned up herself and hid the weapon, but highly unlikely). For Lizzie’s curious statement (hearing Abby’s return), I hope I can post something soon.

Franz wrote:

Yooper wrote:

Franz wrote:The testimonies of others are full of expressions like: “I don’t know”, “I can’t remember”, “I could not tell”, “I haven’t any idea”, “I can’t tell it in order”, “I have a very confused idea”, etc. etc. If other persons could have had a confused memory, why must Lizzie have had remembered all the details of the events?

Because Lizzie's life was on the line, not the other witnesses' lives.

Yooper, "on the line" means in danger? Even though, Lizzie, as a miserable human being like others, couldn't super her limits, we couldn't expect her to remember all correctly. Omissions, errors, inaccuracies that others could commit, she could commit as well. In addition, we must consider that 1) she was the most shocked person, 2) she was the unique person under the pressure of being suspected, 3) she was receiving the morphine treatment.

In my opinion, when we consider a particular point of the Borden case, we should begin from the presumption (of law) that Lizzie was innocent, without being influenced by our own personal conclusion. Under the presumption that she was innocent, we will see if we can find a reasonable explanation for a particular point. For example, the confusions that her testimony contains should not surprise us, because it should be normal that she couldn’t remember all the details, because all other testimonies are the same (I admit that in her testimony there are a number of lies). Being alone at the house Lizzie didn’t worry about her life, it could seem suspicious, but all other persons who were living the tragic moments together with her didn’t worry for her safety neither. Lizzie didn’t think of calling the police immediately, but no other person had the very first reaction to call the police. We have to deny the presumption only when we can’t find in any way a reasonable explanation for some detail. The note story is one of the most important evidence against Lizzie. My explanation is that the note was invented by the killers and then, was found by the executive killer in the pocket of Abby and by him taken away, that’s why the note was never found afterwards, and no one came forward as author or messenger of the note. Whoever convinced for Lizzie’s guilt would find my conjecture highly unlikely, but I don’t think my conjecture is impossible (just as I think it is possible that Lizzie quickly cleaned up herself and hid the weapon, but highly unlikely). For Lizzie’s curious statement (hearing Abby’s return), I hope I can post something soon.

"...without being influenced by our own personal conclusion." followed immediately by; "Under the presumption that she was innocent...."? That original premise didn't last through the next sentence! Try, for once, to find a reasonable explanation without the presumption of anything.

Yes, "on the line" means in jeopardy. Lizzie was the only person to contradict herself, she did this the day of the murders and continued it through the inquest. That isn't quite as innocent as forgetting something.

Yooper, for me premise and presumption are different. I use "presumption" here in its sense of law. Any accused (suspected) person is presumed innocent before the definitive verdict made, right?

Yooper wrote:Yes, "on the line" means in jeopardy. Lizzie was the only person to contradict herself, she did this the day of the murders and continued it through the inquest. That isn't quite as innocent as forgetting something.

Yes Yooper, all this should have a reason, that her life in jeopardy could be one of them. Let's find together the reasons of all her apparently suspicious behaviours, until we really can't find an explanation. It won't be too late to convict her.

Franz wrote:Yooper, for me premise and presumption are different. I use "presumption" here in its sense of law. Any accused (suspected) person is presumed innocent before the definitive verdict made, right?

We are not in court and are not bound by the presumption of anything. We are free to use scientific method to examine the evidence without the need to presume innocence.

Yooper wrote:

Franz wrote:Yooper, for me premise and presumption are different. I use "presumption" here in its sense of law. Any accused (suspected) person is presumed innocent before the definitive verdict made, right?

We are not in court and are not bound by the presumption of anything. We are free to use scientific method to examine the evidence without the need to presume innocence.

Yes, I totally agree with you: we are not in the court. But I can begin from the presumption that Lizzie was innocent, it's my choice. (That I am more convinced for Lizzie's innocence is only a coincidence.)

Since we are not in the court, I think any possible theory can be proposed under discussion, even without proof. Without new archeological (in ample sense of the word) discoveries, no one could offer new proof. Does it mean that, without proof, it is forbidden to propose new theory? One could be conservative and doesn't propose nothing new without new proof, but this is only a personal choice, others could face the question in a different way.

Franz wrote:
Yooper, "on the line" means in danger? Even though, Lizzie, as a miserable human being like others, couldn't super her limits, we couldn't expect her to remember all correctly. Omissions, errors, inaccuracies that others could commit, she could commit as well. In addition, we must consider that 1) she was the most shocked person, 2) she was the unique person under the pressure of being suspected, 3) she was receiving the morphine treatment.
.

We can't expect her to remember correctly about 20 minutes after the murders were committed? This is when she started giving statements about what happened. Events that happened that very day. Not two days ago or a year ago. After 20 minutes she can't remember anything? She can't remember what happened an hour or two ago? Did Lizzie, in fact, have Alzheimer's disease? You make her sound like a two year old.

1) I think Emma, Bridget, and John Morse were shocked. But they did not tell contradictions in their testimonies. Emma had lost her parents as well. But her story remained consistent. Bridget had been in the house at the time of the murders. Her story remained consistent. John Morse had been Andrew's brother- in-law and friend for decades. He did nothing that seemed out of character or aroused suspicion. Why did Lizzie corner the market on shock? 2) She did not know the day of the murders that she was suspected. She should have no anxiety about being suspected unless she actually did it. This is when all of her contradictions started. 3) She had not had any morphine on the day of the murders until later that night when she went to bed. Her contradictions started before she took the morphine, so therefore it does not justify anything. I don't understand why people keep pointing to morphine she wasn't even taking at the time to justify her contradictions.