Window of time...why so narrow?

[NancyDrew]

Time is what is most troubling about this case. The hour and a half that Lizzie waited after she killed Abby is creepy to think about, but more troubling to me is the narrow window of time between when Andrew came home (as witnessed by Mrs. Kelly watching him try to unsuccessfully get in by the side door and then have to go around to the front, correct?) and when Lizzie called to Bridgette.

Why is that window of time so darned narrow? It boggles the mind to think that someone could greet their father, inquire about the mail, get him comfortably settled on the couch, then grab her skirts, flee upstairs to retrieve the hatchet, come flying down, and whack away 11 times, only to then go BACK upstairs, dump the hatchet in her menstrual bucket, (where she was 100% positive police would never look), pat down her hair, wash away any tiny traces of blood, and then run down the stairs again, past Andrew's body, thru the kitchen, and call up the backstairs to the maid that someone had come in and killed father. That's a lot of activity for a woman who didn't do a whole lot; never had a day of hard labor in her whole life.

It's precisely that narrow time window that gave the jury so much trouble in finding Lizzie guilty. They didn't believe she could accomplish all those things in 15 minutes...and so I ask...is it reasonable to assume she could? And remember, this isn't just running up and down stairs. This is killing a living human being, stashing the weapon, inspecting clothing for telltale signs of bloodspatter, possible washing ones hands, stowing the bloody towels someplace (Emma's closet is my guess) and then making herself presentable to what she HAD to know would be a lot of people...

The whole case, for me, hinges on that tight window of time.

[Aamartin]

I think it is absolutely possible.

15 minutes is a long time when you are focused on what you need to get done.

[Allen]

I agree. It's absolutely possible. You can get a lot done in a small space of time. Even if you are not in a rush. Lizzie had plenty of time. Especially if she covered herself with Andrew's coat to keep from becoming blood spattered and then pushed it up under his head. If she covered herself she wouldn't get the blood spatter. Then she just needs to remove the cover. If some of those damp handkerchiefs she had sprinkled with water to allegedly iron were used to wipe the blood off of her hands and hair. Then you take those handkerchiefs and toss them in a bucket of water in the basement and say they are menstrual rags. If she was smart any blood on her person she could have been attributed to rushing in to her father. Many people upon finding their loved one deceased would run to them, get blood on themselves, and at least check for a pulse. Some people have described cradling their dead loved one on the floor in their grief. Praying that even if the wounds looked fatal they were still alive and checking for a pulse. Nobody wants their loved ones to be dead. I did in fact have blood on me after my husbands accident. Everyone says no blood spatter on Lizzie points to her innocence. It actually bothers me MORE that Lizzie had no blood on her. To me it indicates a conscience effort not to be seen with blood on her. And I think Lizzie didn't change her dress until after authorities got there.

It's good if you have the Borden house at your disposal to conduct recreations or do experiments. But even if you do not you can still try it out yourself. Give yourself fifteen minutes. Can you change your clothing, wash your hands, wipe your hair (the hair has never bothered me she could have just put something over her head to keep blood spatter down), hide an item in your house somewhere. Don't even make it easy take it from upstairs to your basement or the furthest point inside your house away from where you are. Then run to call for another family member. How long does it take you to change your own clothing even when you are not in a rush? It takes me about two minutes. She didn't have to worry about changing her undergarments no officer was going to ask to peer at her skivvies. I believe it's entirely possible.

[Allen]

Another thing to remember is this window of time is based on Lizzie. She is the one who called up the stairs to alert Bridget. Before that time nobody knew about the murders. But John Morse was coming back to dinner and Bridget would be coming down to cook the meal. If Lizzie was the killer, and needed more time to clean up, she had it. All she had to do was not call Bridget down stairs until she was ready.

[Franz]

It's possible, but in my opinion, improbable.

Clean her up, yes ... but in a so absolutely perfect manner, such an immaculate cleanness, just as nothing happened upon Lizzie, just as she was totally strange to the double murder, just as she returned from a ordinary walking ... and hid so successfully the weapon, her being so confident that the police would not, absolutely not find it (so she had the courage to hide it in a secret place in her house, running a great risk). Lizzie never killed anyone before, she most probably never used a hatchet, and suddenly in one day she killed so brilliantly two persons one after another with always one or two very first blows ... no noise, or almost...what a brilliant professional performance! And she had never needed to clean her up of human blood splatter until Abby's murder. Someone suggested that Lizzie had learnt to clean her up from Abby's murder and then she did more easily her dirty job with Andrew's blood, oh really?

And all these "first-time" actions, all performed with a great success, in those... how many? 15 minutes?

All this is just too fantastic, too surealistic for me.

(You said:"It's precisely that narrow time window that gave the jury so much trouble in finding Lizzie guilty". I am not sure. For me some other aspects, in favor of Lizzie's innocence, are more important.)

[PossumPie]

It's possible, but in my opinion, improbable.

Clean her up, yes ... but in a so absolutely perfect manner, such an immaculate cleanness, just as nothing happened upon Lizzie, just as she was totally strange to the double murder, just as she returned from a ordinary walking ... and hid so successfully the weapon, her being so confident that the police would not, absolutely not find it (so she had the courage to hide it in a secret place in her house, running a great risk). Lizzie never killed anyone before, she most probably never used a hatchet, and suddenly in one day she killed so brilliantly two persons one after another with always one or two very first blows ... no noise, or almost...what a brilliant professional performance! And she had never needed to clean her up of human blood splatter until Abby's murder. Someone suggested that Lizzie had learnt to clean her up from Abby's murder and then she did more easily her dirty job with Andrew's blood, oh really?

And all these "first-time" actions, all performed with a great success, in those... how many? 15 minutes?

All this is just too fantastic, too surealistic for me.

(You said:"It's precisely that narrow time window that gave the jury so much trouble in finding Lizzie guilty". I am not sure. For me some other aspects, in favor of Lizzie's innocence, are more important.)

The MAJOR problem with your argument here is that the guy Morse paid to kill them would have had to do THE EXACT SAME THING!!!! Murder Mr. Borden clean up hide thee weapon (in his coat or a bag) do it noiselessly, without having ever hacked anyone up with a hatchet before, and do it all in less then 15 min. If you don't believe it about Lizzie, WHY believe it about your murderer? To quote you: "All this is just too fantastic, too surealistic for me"

[Aamartin]

It's possible, but in my opinion, improbable.

Clean her up, yes ... but in a so absolutely perfect manner, such an immaculate cleanness, just as nothing happened upon Lizzie, just as she was totally strange to the double murder, just as she returned from a ordinary walking ... and hid so successfully the weapon, her being so confident that the police would not, absolutely not find it (so she had the courage to hide it in a secret place in her house, running a great risk). Lizzie never killed anyone before, she most probably never used a hatchet, and suddenly in one day she killed so brilliantly two persons one after another with always one or two very first blows ... no noise, or almost...what a brilliant professional performance! And she had never needed to clean her up of human blood splatter until Abby's murder. Someone suggested that Lizzie had learnt to clean her up from Abby's murder and then she did more easily her dirty job with Andrew's blood, oh really?

And all these "first-time" actions, all performed with a great success, in those... how many? 15 minutes?

All this is just too fantastic, too surealistic for me.

(You said:"It's precisely that narrow time window that gave the jury so much trouble in finding Lizzie guilty". I am not sure. For me some other aspects, in favor of Lizzie's innocence, are more important.)

I challenge you to set a time on your phone or a kitchen timer-- and see just how much you can get done in 15 minutes! Even without rushing. Add a sense of urgency-- and you would be amazed at what you can accomplish.

[Franz]

It's possible, but in my opinion, improbable.

Clean her up, yes ... but in a so absolutely perfect manner, such an immaculate cleanness, just as nothing happened upon Lizzie, just as she was totally strange to the double murder, just as she returned from a ordinary walking ... and hid so successfully the weapon, her being so confident that the police would not, absolutely not find it (so she had the courage to hide it in a secret place in her house, running a great risk). Lizzie never killed anyone before, she most probably never used a hatchet, and suddenly in one day she killed so brilliantly two persons one after another with always one or two very first blows ... no noise, or almost...what a brilliant professional performance! And she had never needed to clean her up of human blood splatter until Abby's murder. Someone suggested that Lizzie had learnt to clean her up from Abby's murder and then she did more easily her dirty job with Andrew's blood, oh really?

And all these "first-time" actions, all performed with a great success, in those... how many? 15 minutes?

All this is just too fantastic, too surealistic for me.

(You said:"It's precisely that narrow time window that gave the jury so much trouble in finding Lizzie guilty". I am not sure. For me some other aspects, in favor of Lizzie's innocence, are more important.)

The MAJOR problem with your argument here is that the guy Morse paid to kill them would have had to do THE EXACT SAME THING!!!! Murder Mr. Borden clean up hide thee weapon (in his coat or a bag) do it noiselessly, without having ever hacked anyone up with a hatchet before, and do it all in less then 15 min. If you don't believe it about Lizzie, WHY believe it about your murderer? To quote you: "All this is just too fantastic, too surealistic for me"

1. If the killer were indeed an intruder, who was he (I think the killer was a man)? Lizzie never killed anyone, so far as I know, she never killed any animal (I doubt that the cat story is reliable). The real killer could never kill anyone neither, but if by any chance he was a professional butch? The things would be very different. Not only he could most probably kill the two persons with the very first blows, but also, he could know much better how to avoid the blood slappter, thanks to his professional experiences.

2. We know that Lizzie was immaculately clean that morning. She would have to spend many minutes to carefully, very very carfully clean her up so that she could appear so immaculate in front of all those people. The killer, if an intruder, must have to clean him up as well. This is right. But 1) as I said, if he was a butcher, he could know much better than Lizzie to avoid the blood, so he could get less blood than Lizzie; 2) he probably didn't need to clean him up so perfectly in order not to drow suspicion. I remember to have read a post in which the author said the blood on a dark cloth could be unnoticed. In other words, he could need less time to clean him up than Lizzie.

3. Lizzie, if guilty, must clean the weapon first (in order that the eventual blood trace didn't revel the secret place) or put it in a bag or something, then, went to that place, hid it well, very well, very carefully, then returned. An intruder could, as you said, put it in a bag and then take it away when escape, so for another time he could need less time to do this than Lizzie did.

Indeed, if the killer was an intruder, I think that from the moment he went out the guest room, listen to be sure all is silent, went down, silently, listening, ... until to kill Andrew and escape, the time must be much less than 15 minutes, could be only few minutes.

So, PossumPie, why do you think that an intruder "would have had to do THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!"? I don't think so. It would be much less improbable, much less fantastic for me.

[Franz]

It's possible, but in my opinion, improbable.

Clean her up, yes ... but in a so absolutely perfect manner, such an immaculate cleanness, just as nothing happened upon Lizzie, just as she was totally strange to the double murder, just as she returned from a ordinary walking ... and hid so successfully the weapon, her being so confident that the police would not, absolutely not find it (so she had the courage to hide it in a secret place in her house, running a great risk). Lizzie never killed anyone before, she most probably never used a hatchet, and suddenly in one day she killed so brilliantly two persons one after another with always one or two very first blows ... no noise, or almost...what a brilliant professional performance! And she had never needed to clean her up of human blood splatter until Abby's murder. Someone suggested that Lizzie had learnt to clean her up from Abby's murder and then she did more easily her dirty job with Andrew's blood, oh really?

And all these "first-time" actions, all performed with a great success, in those... how many? 15 minutes?

All this is just too fantastic, too surealistic for me.

(You said:"It's precisely that narrow time window that gave the jury so much trouble in finding Lizzie guilty". I am not sure. For me some other aspects, in favor of Lizzie's innocence, are more important.)

I challenge you to set a time on your phone or a kitchen timer-- and see just how much you can get done in 15 minutes! Even without rushing. Add a sense of urgency-- and you would be amazed at what you can accomplish.

Yes, aamartin, in 15 minutes we can indeed do many things, but to kill a person, to clean yourself up, to hid perfectly the murder weapon, to be sure that everything is ok, perfectly ok before hollering Brdget's name... For me too difficult to imagine for a woman like Lizzie with her life experience.

[PossumPie]

Franz, see my above post...you are suggesting the EXACT SAME THING...only with Morse's paid killer instead of Lizzie...

[Franz]

aamartin, my point was not only about the shortness of the time, but also about the astonishing accomplishment of Lizzie's (if she did it) murder action and her being perfectly immaculate and clean.

[PossumPie]

aamartin, my point was not only about the shortness of the time, but also about the astonishing accomplishment of Lizzie's (if she did it) murder action and her being perfectly immaculate and clean.

So franz, your proposed killer killed Mr. Borden, hid the weapon, cleaned himself up perfectly so that no one on the street would know he killed two people, all in less than 15 minutes? PREPOSTEROUS!

[PossumPie]

By the way, My alarm didn't go off about two weeks ago and in 12 minutes I shaved, showered, got dressed, made a quick lunch for myself, slurped down a cup of coffee, and poured a second one for the road...in 12 minutes.

[Franz]

aamartin, my point was not only about the shortness of the time, but also about the astonishing accomplishment of Lizzie's (if she did it) murder action and her being perfectly immaculate and clean.

So franz, your proposed killer killed Mr. Borden, hid the weapon, cleaned himself up perfectly so that no one on the street would know he killed two people, all in less than 15 minutes? PREPOSTEROUS!

He could clean him up not so perfectly as Lizzie, Lizzie was totally clean, if the author of that post was right, the blood on his dark clothes could be somehow ignored. On the street, no one would go in front of him in order to observe well, in order to know if he had killed someone. why woudl they? But Lizzie, she must appear in front of many people.

"Preposterous". Ok, which would be your adjective for all this if Lizzie did it?

[Franz]

By the way, My alarm didn't go off about two weeks ago and in 12 minutes I shaved, showered, got dressed, made a quick lunch for myself, slurped down a cup of coffee, and poured a second one for the road...in 12 minutes.

Ok. but try to kill someone with a hatchet or a clever, and then hide your weapon perfectly in your house so that no one would find it, and clean you up perfectly to appear before people.

And you will see.

P.S.: And you must try all this in a Victorian style female costume, with the inhabitation facilities of that time, imagining Lizzie's physic conditions and try to do as most exactly possible she would have done... in an August day without any sweat after having done all these great gesta.

And you will see.

[Allen]

She was in the hot dusty barn loft for 20 minutes in the same victorian style clothing without any sweat showing, or dirt on her person? With perfectly white hands? And made no mention of cleaning herself up? She went there specifically to search for lead/iron/tin and came back in the house carrying absolutely nothing.

[Franz]

She was in the hot dusty barn loft for 20 minutes in the same victorian style clothing without any sweat showing, or dirt on her person? With perfectly white hands? And made no mention of cleaning herself up? She went there specifically to search for lead/iron/tin and came back in the house carrying absolutely nothing.

1. Ah the temperature of the barn loft, another story...

2. Could Lizzie wash her hands before going out the barn, without killing anyone? If she had cleaned her hands, must it mean she had killed someone? We all wash our hands many times a day.

3. Why must Lizzie carry something from the barn, if she told the truth by saying that she went in the barn, while she told a false statement, by saying that she was searching for something there?

[Aamartin]

I maintain she could have EASILY done any cleaning up, hid the weapon AND probably had a couple minutes to catch her breath and steady her nerves, if they needed steadying!

[Franz]

I maintain she could have EASILY done any cleaning up, hid the weapon AND probably had a couple minutes to catch her breath and steady her nerves, if they needed steadying!

If Lizzie were really so brilliant in all these first-time extraordinary actions, why was she so stupid in words, much more easier things for her? She killed brillantly two persons using most probably the first time a hatchet with most probably the very fist blows (I think most of us have no such a capacity), but meanwhile, she didn'y prepare a good alibi (I think most of us could). She cleaned her up so perfectly and hid her weapon so successfully, but meanwhile she fabricated a so stupid note story. Oh really?

If we think Lizzie was guilty, how many cincidences must we admit?

[Aamartin]

I maintain she could have EASILY done any cleaning up, hid the weapon AND probably had a couple minutes to catch her breath and steady her nerves, if they needed steadying!

If Lizzie were really so brilliant in all these first-time extraordinary actions, why was she so stupid in words, much more easier things for her? She killed brillantly two persons using most probably the first time a hatchet with most probably the very fist blows (I think most of us have no such a capacity), but meanwhile, she didn'y prepare a good alibi (I think most of us could). She cleaned her up so perfectly and hid her weapon so successfully, but meanwhile she fabricated a so stupid note story. Oh really?

If we think Lizzie was guilty, how many cincidences must we admit?

I think she was somewhat arrogant enough to think she would never be a suspect. Besides that, I am not sure she was planning on offing Andrew all alone. I wonder (a lot) if she just didn't get out of there fast enough for some reason to be downtown when Andrew came home and discovered Abby.

[PossumPie]

Franz, I am getting frustrated with you now. You are being hypocritical. I listed about 9 outstanding coincidences which must occur for your wild theory to be true. You said coincidences can happen. YET you will not admit that perhaps Lizzie hacked her father to death on the couch and did not get blood on her. One coincidence. Or perhaps as someone speculated, she put her father's coat on backwards, covering herself with it, then took it off and bunched it under his head.
For your theory to work, multiple implausible things must happen perfectly. For Lizzie to kill her father, ONE THING must happen, she must not be covered in blood. She throws the hatchet in with her bloody menstrual rags, and -done. If you're going to argue wild coincidences can happen, don't tell me one of mine can't. I posted pictures awhile back of Crime investigators in all white attacking a head with a hammer. There was almost no blood on them except the arm they swung the hammer with.

[PossumPie]

Nobody ever said Lizzie was brilliant. And just b/c you manage to pull off two murders why does that mean you must be "brilliant with words?" That makes no sense. It does not take brilliance to kill two elderly people who trust you with a hatchet. It doesn't take brilliance to not be covered in blood. A few weeks ago you were arguing that Lizzie was rolling in dirty hay masturbating in the heat of the barn, and no one noticed that she wasn't "perfectly presentable" but now you argue that if she killed her father she may be "sweaty" and that would be suspicious. Again, you are being a hypocrite.

[Franz]

Franz, I am getting frustrated with you now. You are being hypocritical. I listed about 9 outstanding coincidences which must occur for your wild theory to be true. You said coincidences can happen. YET you will not admit that perhaps Lizzie hacked her father to death on the couch and did not get blood on her. One coincidence. Or perhaps as someone speculated, she put her father's coat on backwards, covering herself with it, then took it off and bunched it under his head.
For your theory to work, multiple implausible things must happen perfectly. For Lizzie to kill her father, ONE THING must happen, she must not be covered in blood. She throws the hatchet in with her bloody menstrual rags, and -done. If you're going to argue wild coincidences can happen, don't tell me one of mine can't. I posted pictures awhile back of Crime investigators in all white attacking a head with a hammer. There was almost no blood on them except the arm they swung the hammer with.

Dear PossumPie, please don't misunderstand me and don't be so quick to accuse me of being hypocritical. What I wanted to say is only this: we can discuss the coincidences in my theory (I discussed with you and others), we could discuss as well those coincidences in the Lizzie's guilt theory. The discussions are all open, right? The same idea I have expressed before by saying that if Lizzie did it, it should be a number of coincidences.

[Allen]

She was in the hot dusty barn loft for 20 minutes in the same victorian style clothing without any sweat showing, or dirt on her person? With perfectly white hands? And made no mention of cleaning herself up? She went there specifically to search for lead/iron/tin and came back in the house carrying absolutely nothing.

1. Ah the temperature of the barn loft, another story...

2. Could Lizzie wash her hands before going out the barn, without killing anyone? If she had cleaned her hands, must it mean she had killed someone? We all wash our hands many times a day.

3. Why must Lizzie carry something from the barn, if she told the truth by saying that she went in the barn, while she told a false statement, by saying that she was searching for something there?

Franz, you twist the meaning of what I said. She was out in a hot dusty barn, supposedly searching for things, and she comes back inside clean and with no dirt on her hands or clothes. And she never mentions so much as washing her hands after coming out of the barn. I never said anything about before she went to the barn. Or anything about because she washed her hands it means she killed someone. I wonder how she could be so clean after being out in the barn and not washing up. Please don't twist my meaning. If you are going to address a post personally at least address what is actually in the post.

[PossumPie]

Franz, I am getting frustrated with you now. You are being hypocritical. I listed about 9 outstanding coincidences which must occur for your wild theory to be true. You said coincidences can happen. YET you will not admit that perhaps Lizzie hacked her father to death on the couch and did not get blood on her. One coincidence. Or perhaps as someone speculated, she put her father's coat on backwards, covering herself with it, then took it off and bunched it under his head.
For your theory to work, multiple implausible things must happen perfectly. For Lizzie to kill her father, ONE THING must happen, she must not be covered in blood. She throws the hatchet in with her bloody menstrual rags, and -done. If you're going to argue wild coincidences can happen, don't tell me one of mine can't. I posted pictures awhile back of Crime investigators in all white attacking a head with a hammer. There was almost no blood on them except the arm they swung the hammer with.

Dear PossumPie, please don't misunderstand me and don't be so quick to accuse me of being hypocritical. What I wanted to say is only this: we can discuss the coincidences in my theory (I discussed with you and others), we could discuss as well those coincidences in the Lizzie's guilt theory. The discussions are all open, right? The same idea I have expressed before by saying that if Lizzie did it, it should be a number of coincidences.

Franz, how did the killer know that when he left the guest room, and started down the stairs, that Mr. Borden wasn't standing there at the bottom of the steps? How did he know Borden was lying down on the couch with eyes closed? If the killer sneaked out and down the steps, and Mr. Borden happened to be standing there at the bottom of the steps, and saw the killer sneaking down with a bloody hatchet, he would have hollered and ruined the whole thing. If Mr. Borden had been walking down the hall and saw the killer, If Mr. Borden had gone down the basement, up in his room, or anywhere else, the killer would be discovered. You can't hear anything going on downstairs from that guest room...

[Allen]

And how did he know Andrew didn't take his key off the mantle, go up to his room to lay down, and lock the door?

[NancyDrew]

Okay, it is experiment time. I can't do it today, but I WILL do this. I've been to the Borden house, and I'm going to try and reproduce the time frame in my own house...maybe some time this weekend. I'll use my family to help keep time (even though they will be rolling their eyes the whole time.)

I will post and let you all know what happens...

[PossumPie]

Okay, it is experiment time. I can't do it today, but I WILL do this. I've been to the Borden house, and I'm going to try and reproduce the time frame in my own house...maybe some time this weekend. I'll use my family to help keep time (even though they will be rolling their eyes the whole time.)

I will post and let you all know what happens...

You are well worthy of the Username Nancy Drew!!!