Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Here's your poll. You will be able to vote only once. Non-forum members can also vote. Comments added have to be on a new post.

Thank you Harry. I have voted...for JVM.

Morse is occupying the leading place. Hurry up, other girls and guys of the forum and forum's visitors.

Thanks for adding the poll, Harry. I voted for Lizzie acting alone. It will be interesting to see the final result once everyone has cast their vote.

Thanks for setting up the poll. I voted Lizzie with accomplice, but I'm just as comfortable with Lizzie alone. As for the "Grandma" threads, I hold that just b/c someone knew someone who knew someone, who talked with someone....that holds no more weight than the eyewitness testimony of the time. In other words, My cousin seeing a flying saucer over his house wouldn't convince me any more than a newspaper article of a stranger seeing a flying saucer. Just b/c I knew him wouldn't sway my belief that any alien advanced enough to travel billions of miles wouldn't buzz our trailer parks for kicks...

PossumPie wrote:Thanks for setting up the poll. I voted Lizzie with accomplice, but I'm just as comfortable with Lizzie alone. As for the "Grandma" threads, I hold that just b/c someone knew someone who knew someone, who talked with someone....that holds no more weight than the eyewitness testimony of the time. In other words, My cousin seeing a flying saucer over his house wouldn't convince me any more than a newspaper article of a stranger seeing a flying saucer. Just b/c I knew him wouldn't sway my belief that any alien advanced enough to travel billions of miles wouldn't buzz our trailer parks for kicks...

I admire your sense of logic, Possumpie.

I said Lizzie alone, but I am leaning towards with an accomplice. I think Morse might have had to do something with it.

I voted for Lizzie acting alone. I am not, at all, convinced an intruder nor an accomplice was involved. I am convinced that Abby was the targeted victim, due to the 19 blows she received; Andrew only received 10 blows, which is almost half the number that Abby received. The number of blows is just one of the factors which leads me to believe that these murders were committed by someone who was full of rage, an emotion that took over the killer’s very being.

I think they were both the target but for different reasons. I think, even though there is no evidence, that there was some abuse going on. If you look at the brutality of the crime, some thing really had to have ticked Lizzie off.

snokkums wrote:I think they were both the target but for different reasons. I think, even though there is no evidence, that there was some abuse going on. If you look at the brutality of the crime, some thing really had to have ticked Lizzie off.

Even though there is NO evidence, I've always wondered about sexual abuse. Emma was 12 when her mother died. Lizzie 3 or 4. Did father replace his wife with Emma in bed? did that get passed on to Lizzie when she was old enough. Again, NO evidence that I know of, but it would explain the Fury of the attacks. Father would have been the target, Abby just a tangential aside b/c they didn't want her inheriting his money. That sort of implies Emma had knowledge of the attacks, and gave her passive OK to them.

I'm with you on this one, PP. Again, I know there is no evidence, but Lizzie was such a neurotic woman...the shoplifting, for example. She never dated any men that we know of . Plus the fact that so many more women (and men) are sexually abused than is reported. The statistics are staggering. These days, for example, 1 out of 4 women will report some form of sexual abuse in her lifetime. Will REPORT. That doesn't count all the millions of people (like me) who suffered silently all their lives.

In the 19th century, women were the property of their fathers, then their husbands. There was no such things as domestic abuse (I should take that back; I'm sure if it got really out of hand, the police would intervene, but I'm just as sure that any man could just slap or beat his wife with impunity.) or spousal rape.

I'm still convinced that if we could get a peek at the Knowlton papers, locked away in that file cabinet, the members here would be able to discern something meaningful out of them..

PossumPie wrote:

snokkums wrote:I think they were both the target but for different reasons. I think, even though there is no evidence, that there was some abuse going on. If you look at the brutality of the crime, some thing really had to have ticked Lizzie off.

Even though there is NO evidence, I've always wondered about sexual abuse. Emma was 12 when her mother died. Lizzie 3 or 4. Did father replace his wife with Emma in bed? did that get passed on to Lizzie when she was old enough. Again, NO evidence that I know of, but it would explain the Fury of the attacks. Father would have been the target, Abby just a tangential aside b/c they didn't want her inheriting his money. That sort of implies Emma had knowledge of the attacks, and gave her passive OK to them.

I have heard this theory, or variations of it, for some time now. I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't really explain the savagery of the attack on Abby. My own pet theory is that Lizzie's homicidal rage had Abby as the primary target. Then, in the intervening hour and a half or two hours, Lizzie reasoned that she must kill her father as well. I think she may have killed him in the same manner she killed Abby just to make it appear that the same "unknown maniac" had killed them both. In other words, I think that Lizzie, through some warped sense of logic, wanted the two killings to appear "consistent" with each other.

I think I have heard that some psychologists attach a great deal of significance to murders where the victim's face is mutilated, as was the case with Andrew.

Darrowfan wrote:

PossumPie wrote:

snokkums wrote:I think they were both the target but for different reasons. I think, even though there is no evidence, that there was some abuse going on. If you look at the brutality of the crime, some thing really had to have ticked Lizzie off.

Even though there is NO evidence, I've always wondered about sexual abuse. Emma was 12 when her mother died. Lizzie 3 or 4. Did father replace his wife with Emma in bed? did that get passed on to Lizzie when she was old enough. Again, NO evidence that I know of, but it would explain the Fury of the attacks. Father would have been the target, Abby just a tangential aside b/c they didn't want her inheriting his money. That sort of implies Emma had knowledge of the attacks, and gave her passive OK to them.

I have heard this theory, or variations of it, for some time now. I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't really explain the savagery of the attack on Abby. My own pet theory is that Lizzie's homicidal rage had Abby as the primary target. Then, in the intervening hour and a half or two hours, Lizzie reasoned that she must kill her father as well. I think she may have killed him in the same manner she killed Abby just to make it appear that the same "unknown maniac" had killed them both. In other words, I think that Lizzie, through some warped sense of logic, wanted the two killings to appear "consistent" with each other.

I think I have heard that some psychologists attach a great deal of significance to murders where the victim's face is mutilated, as was the case with Andrew.

I agree with you Darrowfan, Facial mutilation can lend a very personal piece to the murders. NancyDrew, I was an outpatient counselor for 20+ years. People have NO CLUE how much sexual abuse occurs behind the closed door of otherwise peaceful looking homes. I've listened to tearful women discuss things I could never repeat.

PossumPie wrote:
I agree with you Darrowfan, Facial mutilation can lend a very personal piece to the murders. NancyDrew, I was an outpatient counselor for 20+ years. People have NO CLUE how much sexual abuse occurs behind the closed door of otherwise peaceful looking homes. I've listened to tearful women discuss things I could never repeat.

Assuming that Lizzie was the murderer, Andrew's killing is problematic. I don't think that Lizzie finalized her decision to kill her father until after she had killed Abby. Up until then, I think Lizzie had to wrestle with the idea of killing them both. I believe her main focus in the planning stage was Abby.

One factor that seems to disprove my theory is that when Lizzie gave her "foreshadowing speech" to Alice Russell, she specifically mentioned her father. "Father is so discourteous to people", "I'm worried that someone will hurt Father", etc. If I recall correctly, she didn't express any worry about any other member of the household by name, but instead used words like "us", "our heads", etc. Since she mentioned her father so specifically, this would seem to indicate that she planned mainly upon killing him. But I'm not so sure.

It may be that Lizzie did not want to mention Abby's name for the very reason that it was Abby who she intended to kill. Also, expressing concern for Abby's safety probably would have sounded absurd, given Lizzie's relationship with her. I suspect that Lizzie specifically mentioned her father, so that when Abby was killed, it would seem as if Lizzie had "guessed wrong" about who was in danger, and thus draw suspicion away from her.

I'm reminded of the line from the Legend of Lizzie Borden with Elizabeth Montgomery. At one point, when Andrew is talking to Lizzie, he says "What goes on in that head of yours? I guess we will never know."

Very true.

Very good point, Darrowfan. Alice Russell had to have known that the relationship between Lizzie and Abby was not cordial. So, if Lizzie had told her that she was worried that someone would hurt “Mrs. Borden” (using Lizzie’s name for Abby here), then Alice would have had red flags flying all over the place.

Harry, I just found that there is not Bridget Sullivan's name in the poll. In my opinion, she could be an option, in any case.

[quote="Darrowfan
...

One factor that seems to disprove my theory is that when Lizzie gave her "foreshadowing speech" to Alice Russell, she specifically mentioned her father. "Father is so discourteous to people", "I'm worried that someone will hurt Father", etc. If I recall correctly, she didn't express any worry about any other member of the household by name, but instead used words like "us", "our heads", etc. Since she mentioned her father so specifically, this would seem to indicate that she planned mainly upon killing him. But I'm not so sure.

...[/quote]

In my opinion, Lizzie especially worried for her father's safety (for reasons! Andrew was not a beloved man!), her mind was occupied by this obsession. And when she found her father was killed the next morning, Lizzie instinctively thought that the killer wanted to kill only her father, and since he successfully killed him, the killer finished what he wanted to do, had escaped from the Borden house, that's why she called Bridget (Lizzie instinctively thought the killer didn't kill Maggy, just as the killer didn't kill herself, and instinctively she thought Bridget could not be the killer), and didn't think to leave the house (because she thought intinctively that the killer was no more there).

I use here many times "instinctively", because of her overwhelming preoccupation for her father's safety in Lizzie's mind. And her reactions immediatedly after the discovery of Andrew's body, in my opinion, could be those of an innocent.

There has never been any proof of anything sexual going on, but, I have to believe that something was going on for Lizzie to go off like she did. She seemed to be very unhappy. Something was going on, or, there was an outside person.

snokkums wrote:There has never been any proof of anything sexual going on, but, I have to believe that something was going on for Lizzie to go off like she did. She seemed to be very unhappy. Something was going on, or, there was an outside person.

You are correct, no proof at all. But it remains a valid conjecture as to possible motive. After the mysterious disappearance of items out of Mr. and Mrs. Borden's room, they kept it locked. I believe everyone knew that Lizzie was the culprit, but couldn't outwardly accuse her without proof. I wonder though if the sisters kept their rooms locked when they were in there...that would give weight to the sexual abuse theory. I've never seen it mentioned though.

Years ago, in another poll, Lizzie obtained 18 votes, others all toghther 7, something like that. Now, the time is changing, the opinions too...

snokkums wrote:There has never been any proof of anything sexual going on, but, I have to believe that something was going on for Lizzie to go off like she did. She seemed to be very unhappy. Something was going on, or, there was an outside person.

One of the reasons I can't believe that an outside intruder committed the murders is the fact that the doors were locked when Andrew came home at 10:45. Remember, he tried coming in through one door, then, failing that, he tried the front door. Bridget had to unlock the door for him to come in. So I have to wonder, if Andrew was unable to get into his own house, even with a key, how did an intruder get in to kill Abby? And after killing Abby, did the intruder somehow make sure the doors were locked from the inside?

Darrowfan wrote:

snokkums wrote:There has never been any proof of anything sexual going on, but, I have to believe that something was going on for Lizzie to go off like she did. She seemed to be very unhappy. Something was going on, or, there was an outside person.

One of the reasons I can't believe that an outside intruder committed the murders is the fact that the doors were locked when Andrew came home at 10:45. Remember, he tried coming in through one door, then, failing that, he tried the front door. Bridget had to unlock the door for him to come in. So I have to wonder, if Andrew was unable to get into his own house, even with a key, how did an intruder get in to kill Abby? And after killing Abby, did the intruder somehow make sure the doors were locked from the inside?

In my theory, the killer entered into the house while Abby opened the front door and deceived by the false messenger. It was Abby who relocked the door shortly before she was murdered in th guest room. This was not impossible.

Franz wrote:
In my theory, the killer entered into the house while Abby opened the front door and deceived by the false messenger. It was Abby who relocked the door shortly before she was murdered in th guest room. This was not impossible.

Yes, but if, as you say, Abby relocked the door before she was murdered, who relocked it after she was murdered?

Franz wrote:Years ago, in another poll, Lizzie obtained 18 votes, others all toghther 7, something like that. Now, the time is changing, the opinions too...

Poll today: Lizzie and/or helper did it- 77% Poll from years ago: Lizzie and/or helper did it- 73%. Pretty close to the same results.

PossumPie wrote:

Franz wrote: Poll today: Lizzie and/or helper did it- 77% Poll from years ago: Lizzie and/or helper did it- 73%. Pretty close to the same results.

I think when people look carefully at all the evidence, they will usually come to the conclusion that Lizzie, rather than some intruder, probably committed the crime. It's the same conclusion that the investigators came to 1892, and probably for the same reasons.

Darrowfan wrote:

Franz wrote:
In my theory, the killer entered into the house while Abby opened the front door and deceived by the false messenger. It was Abby who relocked the door shortly before she was murdered in th guest room. This was not impossible.

Yes, but if, as you say, Abby relocked the door before she was murdered, who relocked it after she was murdered?

?

Franz wrote:

Darrowfan wrote:

Franz wrote:
In my theory, the killer entered into the house while Abby opened the front door and deceived by the false messenger. It was Abby who relocked the door shortly before she was murdered in th guest room. This was not impossible.

Yes, but if, as you say, Abby relocked the door before she was murdered, who relocked it after she was murdered?

?

In other words, Franz, the door was locked from the inside. After Abby was killed, she could not have locked it. And a murderer who left the house could not have locked it from the inside. So, after Abby was dead, who locked the door from the inside? Remember, Bridget had to open the front door for Andrew when he came home at 10:45.

Darrowfan, in my theory, after Abby relocked the front door, no one touched it before Bridget opened it to let Andrew come in. The killer, after having murdered Abby, hid himself in the guest room, and then at about 11:00, he went to kill Andrew and escaped from the side door. He had nothing to do with the front door, unless he came into the house from there, thanks to the false messenger's cooperation.

Franz wrote:Darrowfan, in my theory, after Abby relocked the front door, no one touched it before Bridget opened it to let Andrew come in. The killer, after having murdered Abby, hid himself in the guest room, and then at about 11:00, he went to kill Andrew and escaped from the side door. He had nothing to do with the front door, unless he came into the house from there, thanks to the false messenger's cooperation.

You REALLY think someone hacked Mrs. Borden to death, then sat calmly in a closet for OVER AN HOUR-AND-A-HALF??? That makes no sense at all. Over 90 min. sitting in a closet. They wouldn't have known when Mr. Borden would get home...they were prepared to squat in a closet all day with a body right next to them??? Think that through. Does it make any sense at all? Franz, do me a HUGE FAVOR. Go sit in your closet. Time it for 90 min. Then come back to the forum and we will talk.

PossumPie wrote:

Franz wrote:Darrowfan, in my theory, after Abby relocked the front door, no one touched it before Bridget opened it to let Andrew come in. The killer, after having murdered Abby, hid himself in the guest room, and then at about 11:00, he went to kill Andrew and escaped from the side door. He had nothing to do with the front door, unless he came into the house from there, thanks to the false messenger's cooperation.

You REALLY think someone hacked Mrs. Borden to death, then sat calmly in a closet for OVER AN HOUR??? That makes no sense at all. They wouldn't have known when Mr. Borden would get home...they were prepared to squat in a closet all day with a body right next to them??? Think that through. Does it make any sense at all?

I never said the the killer sat in a closet, I speculated that he hid himself in the guest room. A number of members, regardless if they believe Lizzie was guilty or not, have considered as well the guest room as the hiding place for an intruder. This conjecture, for my theory, can explain as well: 1) the killer had pleinty of time to look for the note and took it. 2) he had plenty of time to give Abby much more blows than Andrew; 3) Lizzie (because I assumed that she was innocent) testified that when she passed by the guest room, the door was closed. In my opinion, this is because the killer was hiding inside; 4) Bridget and Churchill found it open afterwards, because when the killer left the guest room to kill Andrew, he didn't care to close it.

In my opinion all this certainly makes sense, if we assume that the killer was an intruder. If he could kill so barbarically Abby, it should not be a problem for him to being in the same room with her body. And if he was a butcher? No problem at all!

For an intruder, if he wanted to kill another person in the same house, the room where he killed his first victim should be indeed the best place to hide himself. Think that through.

Franz the killer hiding upstairs in the guestroom, and the whole theory of how and why they were even there, has never made sense to me. From the guestroom the killer would have no idea when it would be safe to come down to kill only Andrew. Especially with the door closed. He would have no way to judge a moment he thought best. Which has always been your contention. That he waited in the room until the moment he thought best. He could not see or hear what was going on down stairs to be able to judge a moment he thought best. The guest room would be the worst place to hide. Anywhere in that house would be a terrible place to hide, in my opinion. Bridget was going down cellar to get things and put things away. Members of the household were coming and going in all the rooms on the first floor of the house all morning. Every room but the guest room was kept locked on the second floor. I think this is why people settle on the guest room as a hiding place. It was the only room that was accessible. Process of elimination. It doesn't make it a good hiding place.

Also the blinds of the room were found closed that morning. The inside blinds. Did the killer watch Andrew return home from those windows and then close the blinds? Would he not worry about being seen at the window by passers by as he stood on look out?

Allen wrote:Franz the killer hiding upstairs in the guestroom, and the whole theory of how and why they were even there, has never made sense to me. From the guestroom the killer would have no idea when it would be safe to come down to kill only Andrew. Especially with the door closed. He would have no way to judge a moment he thought best. Which has always been your contention. That he waited in the room until the moment he thought best. He could not see or hear what was going on down stairs to be able to judge a moment he thought best. The guest room would be the worst place to hide. Anywhere in that house would be a terrible place to hide, in my opinion. Bridget was going down cellar to get things and put things away. Members of the household were coming and going in all the rooms on the first floor of the house all morning. Every room but the guest room was kept locked on the second floor. I think this is why people settle on the guest room as a hiding place. It was the only room that was accessible. Process of elimination. It doesn't make it a good hiding place.

Also the blinds of the room were found closed that morning. The inside blinds. Did the killer watch Andrew return home from those windows and then close the blinds? Would he not worry about being seen at the window by passers by as he stood on look out?

Thank you, Allen!!! Very well put.

Please don't forget that the guest room has three windows and from which the killer, if he hid there, could have observed the two entries of the house and knew when Andrew returned. Every murderer must run some risk. The killer, in my theory ran his and fortunately succeeded. After Andrew went into the other part of the house, he could slightly open the door to hear well the noises of the movements in the house, when he judged the best moment, left the guest room, went downstairs by the front stairs, and then, maybe hid himself in the parlor for a moment. When the silence reigned in the house, he acted.

The guest room is the best place to kill Abby, and in my opinion the best place for the intruder to hide himself. I think so.

Franz wrote:Please don't forget that the guest room has three windows and from which the killer, if he hid there, could have observed the two entries of the house and knew when Andrew returned. Every murderer must run some risk. The killer, in my theory ran his and fortunately succeeded. After Andrew went into the other part of the house, he could slightly open the door to hear well the noises of the movements in the house, when he judged the best moment, left the guest room, went downstairs by the front stairs, and then, maybe hid himself in the parlor for a moment. When the silence reigned in the house, he acted.

The guest room is the best place to kill Abby, and in my opinion the best place for the intruder to hide himself. I think so.

The killer killed Abby then calmly sat in the same room for 90 min??? Anyone could have walked in. The killer would have been found. He sat for AN HOUR AND A HALF? just picking his nose, hoping Andrew would come home and just HAPPEN to lay on a couch and take a nap??? Then sneak down stairs past the occupants of the house, kill him, run away off down the street carrying a hatchet and NO ONE SAW HIM??? I'd rather believe that Elvis Time-warped back to the house and killed them with ESP mind power.

So, Franz, you're saying the killer took the time to close the blinds on the windows but didn't care to close the door to the room? Maybe I should not refer to them as blinds. They were indoor shutters. Like these ones pictured. The top and bottom halves opened separately so that the top could be opened and the bottom closed, and vice versa.

The guest room would be the most unlikely room to hide in, cut off from the activities going on in the household. An intruder would not be smart enough to listen for sounds and know when to act, ridiculous!

Allen wrote:So, Franz, you're saying the killer took the time to close the blinds on the windows but didn't care to close the door to the room? Maybe I should not refer to them as blinds. They were indoor shutters. Like these ones pictured. The top and bottom halves opened separately so that the top could be opened and the bottom closed, and vice versa.

Allen, I didn't say nothing about the blinds or indoor shutters. I said that the killer didn't care to close the door only when he left the room to go to kill Andrew. During all his waiting time, he certainly closed the door, as Lizzie testified.

Thank you for posting the photo. How to do to post a picture?

Franz wrote:

Allen wrote:So, Franz, you're saying the killer took the time to close the blinds on the windows but didn't care to close the door to the room? Maybe I should not refer to them as blinds. They were indoor shutters. Like these ones pictured. The top and bottom halves opened separately so that the top could be opened and the bottom closed, and vice versa.

Allen, I didn't say nothing about the blinds or indoor shutters. I said that the killer didn't care to close the door only when he left the room to go to kill Andrew. During all his waiting time, he certainly closed the door, as Lizzie testified.

Thank you for posting the photo. How to do to post a picture?

Franz, if you wish to post a picture, click on the button marked "IMG" at the top of the box you are typing your text into. Two little [IMG] boxes come up. Then insert the URL for your picture between the two [Img] boxes.

The more I think of someone hiding for an hour and a half in an upstairs room with a dead body, the less I find it plausible. Impossible? No, people do strange things. Unlikely? Yes. 90 min. is the length of the average full-length movie. That is a long time. I know your theory, how did the intruder NOT know Mr. Borden was already home, but working in the basement or something? You admit he sneaked in and hid in the guest room, You say he ducked behind Mrs. Borden when she was distracted at the front door, and ran up the steps. How did he know when he entered the house that Lizzie and Bridget wouldn't be right there and see him run in? Your theory must mean that he hid somewhere outside to watch and know that Mr. Borden left the house but had not returned, in order to know that he wasn't home at the time the 'messenger' came to the door, so why not just keep an eye out for Mr. Borden to return THEN attack them both? He wouldn't have had to hang out for an hour and a half, he would have been in and out in less than 5 minutes?

Yes PossumPie. But in my theory I said that Morse wanted that his nieces could benefit the death of Andrew. So he planned to killed Abby and to kill her first, with a notable time interval between hers and Andrew's death. His criminal plan was a very minutious one and carefully prepared. That's why I said Morse was an excellent theatre director (but a bad actor on the stage, for the reasons I explained in my threads concerning Morse).

The killer, when entered in the house, could not have known where Lizzie and Bridget were, but they sun the risk and succeeded. The Borden case is one of the most extraordinary murder cases still unsolved. No matter who was the real killer, I believe that some extraordinary things occurred that morning.

Thank you for the picture information.

Franz wrote:

Allen wrote:So, Franz, you're saying the killer took the time to close the blinds on the windows but didn't care to close the door to the room? Maybe I should not refer to them as blinds. They were indoor shutters. Like these ones pictured. The top and bottom halves opened separately so that the top could be opened and the bottom closed, and vice versa.

Allen, I didn't say nothing about the blinds or indoor shutters. I said that the killer didn't care to close the door only when he left the room to go to kill Andrew. During all his waiting time, he certainly closed the door, as Lizzie testified.

Thank you for posting the photo. How to do to post a picture?

No, what you said was the killer looked out of the windows to watch for Andrew to come home. Which implies the shutters were opened for the killer to see out of them. If they were found closed when Abby's body was discovered that implies the killer took the time to close them. Why would he care to close the shutters but not the door before he left the room?

Allen, please tell me what makes you think that the killer, if he was an intruder and hid himself in the guest room while waiting, must open the shutters of the window to know Andrew's return?

How is he going to look out the window with the shutters closed? It's your theory Franz. You explain it to me.

Here's a view of the shutters on the 3 windows in the guest room. 2 look out on Second St, the third looking north.

I can't help but notice a serious flaw in your theory, Franz. If I understand you correctly, the killer sneeked into the house and went up to the guest room. There, he waited for Abby to enter, so that he could kill her. I admit it could have happened that way, but then you have the problem of his "waiting an hour and a half for Andrew" as some of us have pointed out. My question is: how did the killer know that Andrew would return in an hour and a half, or in 10 minutes, or in 2 hours, or the next day, etc?

It seems to me that the killer, who obviously intended to kill both Abby and Andrew, would have tried to commit the crimes fairly close together, if the killer were an outsider. In other words, he would want to kill them both at about the same time, then quickly make his escape.

I can only think of one reason that a killer would kill the two victims at different times, on different floors of the house: if the killer were a member of the household, and would therefore have no reason to hide during the time period between the first murder and the second.

Darrowfan wrote:I can't help but notice a serious flaw in your theory, Franz. If I understand you correctly, the killer sneeked into the house and went up to the guest room. There, he waited for Abby to enter, so that he could kill her. I admit it could have happened that way, but then you have the problem of his "waiting an hour and a half for Andrew" as some of us have pointed out. My question is: how did the killer know that Andrew would return in an hour and a half, or in 10 minutes, or in 2 hours, or the next day, etc?

It seems to me that the killer, who obviously intended to kill both Abby and Andrew, would have tried to commit the crimes fairly close together, if the killer were an outsider. In other words, he would want to kill them both at about the same time, then quickly make his escape.

I can only think of one reason that a killer would kill the two victims at different times, on different floors of the house: if the killer were a member of the household, and would therefore have no reason to hide during the time period between the first murder and the second.

Darrowfan, please don't forget that in my theory Morse was the "director" of the tragedy and he should have known the routine of Andrew.

Harry wrote:Here's a view of the shutters on the 3 windows in the guest room. 2 look out on Second St, the third looking north.

Thank you Harry. I would like to know, Harry, were the shutters of that time more or less the same as those of today in their structure (not the material)? I imagined that they should be, but I would like a confirm by experts as you and Allen, Thanks.

The current shutters are the same style as the ones on the 1892 house. As in 1892 they are on all windows.

I have multiple pictures of the house taken without the shutters on all of the windows. I am not sure when they were added back.

Harry wrote:The current shutters are the same style as the ones on the 1892 house. As in 1892 they are on all windows.

I have multiple pictures of the house taken without the shutters on all of the windows. I am not sure when they were added back.

Thank you, Harry.

If so, Allen, I think the killer didn't need to open the shutter to know Andrew's return. I used the word "know", not "see". He didn't really need to see the whole scene outside. Through the shutter he might have known what was happening outside.

Franz wrote:

Harry wrote:The current shutters are the same style as the ones on the 1892 house. As in 1892 they are on all windows.

I have multiple pictures of the house taken without the shutters on all of the windows. I am not sure when they were added back.

Thank you, Harry.

If so, Allen, I think the killer didn't need to open the shutter to know Andrew's return. I used the word "know", not "see". He didn't really need to see the whole scene outside. Through the shutter he might have known what was happening outside.

Quote from Franz in this thread Sat Oct 19, 2013 8:57 am - "Please don't forget that the guest room has three windows and from which the killer, if he hid there, could have observed the two entries of the house and knew when Andrew returned."

Franz, I do think you change your theory whenever you are presented with evidence that goes against it. And to "observe" something means to see it does it not? You did say, specifically several times, that the killer would observe out the three windows. Now you say he didn't need to observe Andrew come home. And according to you the killer can hear and see what is going on down stairs through a closed door to judge when he can come down. He can hear what is going on in the street through closed shuttered windows on the second floor to know when Andrew came home. Franz you really do like arguing for arguments sake. And you really do contradict even your own theory when it suits your purpose. Astounding. I think you've posted so many versions of your theory even you can't keep up with what you're saying. I will not be replying to any more of your posts about this ridiculous ever changing theory.

Allen, my point is that the killed didn't need to see "fully" the outside. I asked Harry about the shutter of that time just for this reason. From the shutters enven closed one can see a little, maybe hear a little. You said that my theory implies that the killer opened the shutters. No, I said "observed", this doesn't mean that he opened the shutter to observe, he didn't need to open the shutter to know Andrew's return. In my previous threads I never mentioned the shutters because I thought there should not be a problem for an intruder to know Andrew's return. Thanks to your discussion and Harry's information, now I have a more clear idea and more convinced that the intruder, if there were one, could know Andrew's return even with the shutters closed.

My theory about this precise point is always the same. And as a whole I posted only two versions (I cancelled the first), not "so many".

P.S.: Allen, I have never been the Borden house, but according to the photo, one in the guest room can easily oversee the front door. And if the shutter was the same as those of today, I think one could "observe" and know a person's arrival without open the shutter. Whoever (you included) has been there can tell me if this is true or not.