Lizzie Borden Society Forum

To give us something different to do, I figured I'd google "unsolved ax murders". This case popped up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villisca_Axe_Murders

I have not researched it other than the Wiki. Maybe you guys might find it interesting.

A main suspect was a guy named Sawyer. Look at how compelling the case is at first:

- the murders of the 8 people took place between midnight and 5am. Andy Sawyer was a drifter who showed up at the Burlington Railroad at 6 am the same morning looking for work. He was in a clean suit that was soaked from the knees down.
- Dyer testified that later that evening when the crew hit Fontenelle Iowa, Sawyer purchased a newspaper which he went off by himself to read. The newspaper carried a front page account of the Villisca murders and according to Dyer, Sawyer "was much interested in it."
- Dyer's crew complained that Sawyer slept with his clothes on and was anxious to be by himself. They were also uneasy about the fact that Sawyer slept with his ax and often talked of the Villisca murders and whether or not a killer had been apprehended.
-He apparently told Dyer personally that he had been in Villisca that Sunday night and had heard of the murders and was afraid he may be a suspect which was why he left and showed up in Creston.
- Dyer testified that he walked up behind Sawyer and he was rubbing his head with both hands and all of the sudden jumped up and said to himself "I will cut your god damn heads off" at the same time he made striking motions with the ax and began hitting the piles in front of him.
- Dyer's son (J.R.) also testified that one day as the crew drove through Villisca, Sawyer told him he would show J.R. where the man that killed the Moore family got out of town. He said the man that did the job jumped over a manure box which he pointed out about 11⁄2 blocks away and then showed where he crossed the railroad track and there were footprints in the soggy ground north of the embankment. He then said for J.R. to look on the other side of the car and he would show him an old tree where he said the murderer stepped into the creek. According to J.R. Dyer, he looked over and saw such a tree south of the track about four blocks away.

Looks like this was the guy, huh? The fella slept with his ax!

Only problem is it could not have been him. For one thing, the murder weapon was found in the house in the room of the last victims. But more importantly, he had an airtight alibi: he had been arrested in another town for vagrancy and put on a train by the sheriff at about 11PM. It doesn't say in the wiki, but I assume that this left him no way to get to the house in Villisca in time.

The next suspect, one who would eventually stand trial twice, was a mentally ill and sexually deviant minister. And yet another suspect was a William Mansfield, who became suspected of being a serial killing ax murderer involved with multiple unsolved cases that had the same M.O.

What light does this shed on the Borden case? I don't know, maybe if we investigate we'll find some cool stuff. But even from the wiki, some interesting things emerge.

There are several suspects, but just looking at the 3 I mentioned here...each one seems guilty! And very convincingly so. I mean very powerful testimony which really establishes the likelihood of guilt for all three of them.

But at most, one of them is guilty. Because they did not work together. That means at least two of these suspects, and possibly all three of them, are completely innocent despite testimony which implicates them. The testimony consists mostly of third party testimony about the suspects own statements! And these statements are far, far more incriminating than anything Lizzie ever said.

Another interesting thing is it's hard, IMO, to imagine the crime scene. All of the victims except the last child were apparently killed in their sleep. The father and mother were both killed in their sleep. Wouldn't someone getting hacked to death next to you tend to wake you up? Next killed were the 4 kids that lived there. Sounds like this was in one room, or maybe two...but no one woke up? The last 2 kids killed were in a guest room. The 12 year old girl had defensive wounds, the only one in the house that apparently woke up. And that's where the killer left the ax, as Franz(I think) suggested the Borden killer would have done!

So we see impossibly odd things that just don't add up, and we see that third party testimony by witnesses to statements the suspects supposedly said as being a major part of the problem. Look at Sawyer...several witnesses who heard him say things and saw him do things which created the overwhelming impression of his guilt. And yet he could not have been the killer! How does this happen? Because once suspicion is built around someone, the mind begins to reinterpret everything that suspect said within the glare of suspicion. We all do it. It's human nature. So this drifter is reading about an ax murderer killing 6 people...who wouldn't be? That's big news. But because he showed up that morning, a drifter, he becomes suspicious and even innocent curiosity is now imparted with meaning by the witnesses. And of course he knew stuff about the case...he was reading the papers. Did he know things only the killer could have known? The testimony suggests so,but this shows how unreliable such testimony is.

Anyway, though you guys might enjoy the case. Happy New Year!

Interesting, thanks. I did my Master's Thesis on Serial Killers' psychological profiles. One thing that REALLY bothers me about the Borden case is the amount of time between killings. Serial killers (almost always sexual predators but sometimes for profit, or excitement), all have something in common. People say "Oh, they must be crazy" BUT they are very smart from the standpoint of not being caught. It is usually something stupid that they do when they feel overly confident that get's them nabbed. It just does not fit any modus operandi of any serial killer, spree killer, or 'thrill' killer to wait around an hour and a half. They are good at getting in, killing, and getting out. I would not even bother studying this case if it weren't for the long amount of time between killings, b/c if it weren't for that, I would assume it was a random 'spree homicide' with no motive other than the thrill of killing. BUT the long amount of time between Mrs. and Mr. Borden tell me it MUST have been someone intimately knowledgeable with the family and their routine. After all to sit for 90 min waiting for Mr. Borden to come home would take majorly large metallic testicles.

One thing that always made it hard to imagine anyone but Lizzie was the idea that odds were against Lizzie hearing the killing of Abby.

In Villisca, apparently the killings were quiet enough so as not to wake people in the same room!

And the killer was patient and deliberate, covering the windows and washing his blade in a basin that he placed at the foot of the bed. It doesn't sound like someone operating in any kind of frenzy. Comparing to the Borden case, it makes it easier to see how Lizzie stayed calm after the killings...but it also makes it easier to imagine how an outside killer could remain calm between killings, especially he was motivated by grudge or something else.

If an intruder could have gotten into the Borden house, it's not unfeasible that he could kill Abby, hide in the guest room, then kill Andrew. He could have been listening carefully to the movements of Lizzie and Bridget. I'm not saying that's what happened, and odds are against it...just as they are against Lizzie hiding the hatchet or someone helping Lizzie. It's long odds wherever one looks! That's the fun of it.

Leitskev, Do you get The Hatchet: A Journal of Lizzie Borden & Victorian Studies? If not, you may interested in knowing that the Winter 2013 issue of The Hatchet, has just been published, and one of the article in this issue is, “Villisca—Still ‘Living with a Mystery’” — an historical investigation into the Villisca axe murders (Villisca, Iowa) of 1912, by Michael Shogi. The article is 11 pages long, and contains photos of the Moore family as well as the Stillinger sisters, the bedrooms, attic and kitchen, etc. There is also a newspaper report regarding the murders.

If you have not gotten this issue, I highly recommend that you do. The Winter 2013, #30, issue of The Hatchet: Journal of Lizzie Borden & Victorian Studies is online and on sale! Here is the link:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5284

Wow! No, didn't know that. And I had never heard of the Villisca until I googled today,but it's the first several that come up. Very sad but interesting case. I've never seen the Hatchet.

It is a very sad case. 8 people killed, and no one was ever charged with their murders!

Here is the official site for The Villisca Axe Murders:

http://www.villiscaiowa.com/

These web sites have a lot of great information on the murders:

http://iowacoldcases.org/case-summaries ... e-murders/

http://www.villiscamovie.com/story_01.htm

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... sca/5.html


Here are a couple of videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXqcCbrFICU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDwh_pda2Tw


Photos:

http://www.villiscaiowa.com/the-crime.php

Reinforces my belief that murderers are caught only b/c they do something very stupid. We hold onto a belief that the Police are some omniscient body who can solve Most crimes with clever minds and scientific equipment. The truth is that they are hard working humans who botch, overlook, and inadvertently destroy just as much as they discover. They usually solve a crime b/c the murderer has done something in the heat-of-the-moment and didn't cover his tracks well.
Heck, Jeffery Dahmer was in the process of raping and killing 14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone when the child broke free, and ran drugged, bleeding and naked into the street into the arms of the cops. Dahmer told the police that it was a domestic argument, and the cops handed the young boy BACK TO DAHMER, who took him back to his apartment, and killed him, hacking him up into pieces.
No, the police solve most crimes b/c of the stupidity of the criminals, not b/c of the intelligence of law enforcement.

I agree fully on the police. Hope none of my cop friends don't come to this site! Usually, IMO, someone gets caught only because someone else turned them in. People talk. Heck, often the killer talks!

This does not impact my belief they would almost certainly have found the hatchet if it were in the house. All that required was time and motivation, and they had a lot of both.

Though, as Allen says, if there was a blood or paint stained dress, they should have found that.

But looking for the weapon was much easier. Finding a few drops of blood on a dress in a dimly lit house was more challenging considering how many dresses there apparently were.

The recently discovered journals of Lizzie's lawyer indicate Lizzie was close to her father and that she had plenty of money. They also indicate that while she might not have been close to Abby, there was little evidence of hostility. Bridget testified, I think, they in 3 years she had never heard them argue. I can't verify that from the testimony, I don't remember that part.

I know people who have stayed in the house. I also know people from Villisca and they are not fond of the house, or it's reputation. I'd like to spend the night, but it is spendy.

PossumPie wrote:Reinforces my belief that murderers are caught only b/c they do something very stupid. We hold onto a belief that the Police are some omniscient body who can solve Most crimes with clever minds and scientific equipment. The truth is that they are hard working humans who botch, overlook, and inadvertently destroy just as much as they discover. They usually solve a crime b/c the murderer has done something in the heat-of-the-moment and didn't cover his tracks well.
Heck, Jeffery Dahmer was in the process of raping and killing 14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone when the child broke free, and ran drugged, bleeding and naked into the street into the arms of the cops. Dahmer told the police that it was a domestic argument, and the cops handed the young boy BACK TO DAHMER, who took him back to his apartment, and killed him, hacking him up into pieces.
No, the police solve most crimes b/c of the stupidity of the criminals, not b/c of the intelligence of law enforcement.

We have a false idea of law enforcement and crime solving from all the legal shows on TV. I used to really like some of them, but have quit watching many of them, ie- Criminal Minds, because they are so disturbing.

That said, the sight of Mr and Mrs Borden must have been ghastly-- I sometimes think people, myself included forget that and think of it as a quaint victorian mystery.

lol, get this...the house is on the corner of Sixth and Second Street. Second Street. Kinda weird.

The bloodhound handler arrived late that evening ...They did sniff with interest along a trail that led through town to the nearby river, but they lost it there and couldn't pick anything up on the other side. It seemed the killer, if that's who they were following, had decided to walk through the water...

Funny how these cases go. The presumption from this is that the killer waded through the stream. Meanwhile, the drifter who would become the first suspect showed up that same morning...hours from the killings...to apply for the job at the railroad, and his suit was soaked from the knees down.

See how these things happen? Did this guy really show up with soaked pants that morning? Or did witnesses later imagine it this way, witnesses that by then knew of the bloodhounds following a scent to the stream? And meanwhile this suspect had an airtight alibi, as it turned out.

Compare this to Lizzie: Bowen claimed that Mrs. Borden had showed up the day before worried about poisoning. This no doubt was circulating through Fall River within hours. And voila...pharmacists suddenly recall Lizzie trying to buy poison! Or someone that looked like her anyway. Remember, this is before the autopsy of the stomachs had shown no poison.

(The killer had to have made a considerable amount of noise as he cracked skulls and jabbed the ax into ceilings, as well as when climbing the stairs. It was a mystery how he could have gone about his business, waking no one. It seemed that, except for Lena, they all lay still, killed in their sleep.

Just like neither Abby nor Andrew seemed to make any effort to defend themselves, so were presumed to not see the blow coming. And just like neither Lizzie or Bridget heard the killing of Abby. A husband and wife in the same bed, on the second floor of a creaky wooden house...and no one wakes up! The killer had a lantern. If he brought that into the room, wouldn't someone wake up,even if the flame were low? If he didn't bring it in, how did he see what he was doing?

Then he kills the 4 kids...all in one room. No sign anyone woke up. Finally, he kills the 2 visiting kids downstairs, and the oldest girl was perhaps the only one to awake.

Since he'd covered most of the victim's heads or faces, there was reason to believe that he might have been acquainted with them...

Similarly, investigators believed Abby knew her killer, though for different reasons. But in both cases that assumption is somewhat dubious and thinly drawn. In the Villisca case, they assumed the killer felt some guilt, and thus covered the faces...and that the guilt was the result of familiarity. That's thin.

In the Borden case, I believe the assumption of familiarity stems from 2 things: the position of Abby's body, and the lack of defensive wounds. However, the body was moved before the investigation began, so it's exact position is unknown. All we have is the testimony, which is notoriously corrupted and unreliable. As for lack of defensive wounds, that tells me nothing. I am 6'2. If I am swinging a hatchet, and the victim is short, the blow is going to come down from above, likely missing her hands.

There may be more evidence on that which I am not considering, such as the nature of the skull wounds. I'm just saying that from those 2 points, the body position and lack of defensive wounds, that's inconclusive.

leitskev wrote:I agree fully on the police. Hope none of my cop friends don't come to this site! Usually, IMO, someone gets caught only because someone else turned them in. People talk. Heck, often the killer talks!

This does not impact my belief they would almost certainly have found the hatchet if it were in the house. All that required was time and motivation, and they had a lot of both.

Though, as Allen says, if there was a blood or paint stained dress, they should have found that.

But looking for the weapon was much easier. Finding a few drops of blood on a dress in a dimly lit house was more challenging considering how many dresses there apparently were.

The recently discovered journals of Lizzie's lawyer indicate Lizzie was close to her father and that she had plenty of money. They also indicate that while she might not have been close to Abby, there was little evidence of hostility. Bridget testified, I think, they in 3 years she had never heard them argue. I can't verify that from the testimony, I don't remember that part.

We'll just agree to disagree Leitskev.

--2008 a guy was arrested, searched by multiple officers and jailed in Brooklyn for 2 hours with a loaded 9mm in his pocket. Only after another pat-down after coming out of the bathroom, did cops find the pistol. The guy had it the whole time in his pocket.

---2012 in London Police officers searched a killer's apartment 3 times, including the loft where Tia Sharp's corpse lay wrapped in plastic without finding her body. Dogs were brought in, the house was searched THREE TIMES. Nothing. They discovered it during the FOURTH SEARCH only b/c it had begun to rot and smell bad. Police apologized for their ineptitude. 80 officers were involved in the search.

---Cops failed to find JonBenet Ramsey's body in her own home. Friends of the family (destroying crime scene evidence) discovered the body in the basement.

I'm not sure why you have such a believe in the infallibility of law enforcement to find a hatchet in a house when they can't even find a body.

leitskev wrote: ... And that's where the killer left the ax, as Franz(I think) suggested the Borden killer would have done!
...

Leitskev, sorry but I didn't suggest so. In my opinion, if the killer were Lizzie, it would be better for her to leave her weapon there, instead of hiding it in the house. But if the killer were an intruder, it would be better to take it away, if it was easy to do so.

Possum, disagreeing is cool. If we all agreed, there would be nothing to discuss here. That would be no fun!

I would prefer if you could possibly be more accurate in stating my positions. Lord knows I've blabbed about them enough here! lol

I never said law enforcement was infallible in its ability to search, or in anything.

Police botch cases all the time. They lose evidence, mishandle it; they intimidate and manipulate people into false statements; they plant evidence; and they give false testimony.

I'll repeat: it IS possible they missed the hatchet. Just like it IS possible an intruder got in. And it IS possible someone smuggled the weapon out for Lizzie. It's a matter of calculating odds. The combination of circumstances made it highly unlikely to me police would miss a weapon: (1) they were highly motivated, as they believed strongly the weapon was in the house once they were confident Lizzie was the killer; (2) they had all the time in the world; they could search that house as often and as long as they liked; (3) it's a pretty simple house to search.

I'm not sure those examples you listed above help. The first one does not involve a house, and no doubt the Brooklyn precinct is a chaotic place. I don't know the story of the second one, but were they searching for a body? Or did someone just call in complaining of a smell? I mean if they were searching specifically for a corpse, if they knew there was very likely a murder victim in the apartment, and they still couldn't find it, that's bad. But I suspect they maybe just got a call about odor.

And I don't recall the Ramsey details, but investigating a missing person is very different than looking for something specific related to a murder. They probably thought they were dealing with an abduction at that point. I'm not excusing it...I'm saying it's apples to oranges. If someone told the police that the little girl's corpse was somewhere in the house, and their job was to search, I'm pretty confident they would find it. Or that we would.

When I first was reading about the Borden trial, I guessed that maybe the police did not find the hatchet because they thought they already had it, so were not really looking hard. But from reading the trial transcripts, it's obvious the police had no confidence while they were searching that the handleless hatchet was the weapon. They knew it wasn't, I suspect. So they were determined to find it.

If you, Allen, Franz and myself were told a house had a weapon hidden in it, the only thing that could stop us from finding it would be time. The cops in the Borden case had all the time in the world. They could go back as many times as they liked, I presume, especially once Lizzie was charged. They must have at some point felt there was nothing left there to search.

leitskev wrote: ... Because once suspicion is built around someone, the mind begins to reinterpret everything that suspect said within the glare of suspicion. We all do it. It's human nature.
...

We Chinese have a word deriving from a fable story. Here it is:

A man could not found one object of him. He suspected that his neighbor had stolen it. The more he thought so, the more it seemed to him that every gest, every word of his neighbor was suspicious.

A few days later, the man found that dispeared object. And then he observed again his neighbor: his gests or words were no more suspicious at all for him.

Do you want to know what that object in question was? It was an ... hatchet.

Please believe me, I didn't invent nothing. The word in Chinese is 疑邻盗斧.

Pretty cool. I won't try to pronounce it!

The Villisca case really showed how unbelievably unreliable witness testimony is. Without physical evidence to support it, it's close to useless.

leitskev wrote:Possum, disagreeing is cool. If we all agreed, there would be nothing to discuss here. That would be no fun!

I would prefer if you could possibly be more accurate in stating my positions. Lord knows I've blabbed about them enough here! lol

I never said law enforcement was infallible in its ability to search, or in anything.

Police botch cases all the time. They lose evidence, mishandle it; they intimidate and manipulate people into false statements; they plant evidence; and they give false testimony.

I'll repeat: it IS possible they missed the hatchet. Just like it IS possible an intruder got in. And it IS possible someone smuggled the weapon out for Lizzie. It's a matter of calculating odds. The combination of circumstances made it highly unlikely to me police would miss a weapon: (1) they were highly motivated, as they believed strongly the weapon was in the house once they were confident Lizzie was the killer; (2) they had all the time in the world; they could search that house as often and as long as they liked; (3) it's a pretty simple house to search.

I'm not sure those examples you listed above help. The first one does not involve a house, and no doubt the Brooklyn precinct is a chaotic place. I don't know the story of the second one, but were they searching for a body? Or did someone just call in complaining of a smell? I mean if they were searching specifically for a corpse, if they knew there was very likely a murder victim in the apartment, and they still couldn't find it, that's bad. But I suspect they maybe just got a call about odor.

And I don't recall the Ramsey details, but investigating a missing person is very different than looking for something specific related to a murder. They probably thought they were dealing with an abduction at that point. I'm not excusing it...I'm saying it's apples to oranges. If someone told the police that the little girl's corpse was somewhere in the house, and their job was to search, I'm pretty confident they would find it. Or that we would.

When I first was reading about the Borden trial, I guessed that maybe the police did not find the hatchet because they thought they already had it, so were not really looking hard. But from reading the trial transcripts, it's obvious the police had no confidence while they were searching that the handleless hatchet was the weapon. They knew it wasn't, I suspect. So they were determined to find it.

If you, Allen, Franz and myself were told a house had a weapon hidden in it, the only thing that could stop us from finding it would be time. The cops in the Borden case had all the time in the world. They could go back as many times as they liked, I presume, especially once Lizzie was charged. They must have at some point felt there was nothing left there to search.

Leitskev, I'm sorry if i misrepresented your case. You are quite correct. Many things are NOT impossible, but just statistically improbable. It ABSOLUTELY is statistically improbability that a bunch of cops couldn't find a hatchet in a house. BUT not impossible.
The sad Tia Sharp case I mentioned above, the London cops WERE LOOKING FOR A BODY!!! As improbable as it sounds, yes they couldn't find a 12 y.o. girl's body in a house. Tia Sharp was reported missing from her grandmother's home. Suspicion fell on grandmother's boyfriend, Stewart Hazell. Police WERE looking for a body, or ANY trace of Tia, and searched the house from top to bottom 3 times. The girl's sexually molested body was in the loft room of the house, wrapped in black plastic. In plain view in a corner. Somehow it was overlooked. Finally, when it began to decay, the smell tipped the not-so-bright officers to check that pile of plastic more closely. Her body was found. While finding it sooner wouldn't have saved her life, it would have given them evidence of how she was killed, which was lost b/c of decomposition. This caused major embarrassment for the police, who had to publicly apologize for gross ineptitude.
My point with these stories truly isn't to show how stupid cops are (Though I believe they are) but to show you that no matter what statistics say about something, we can't assume that it is IMPOSSIBLE.
Improbability conspired to sink the Titanic. A moonless night, pressure to go faster, a dead calm sea so no waves seen breaking around the berg, seeing the iceberg at just the WRONG time, (any sooner-they could port around it, any later they would have hit it head on and not ruptured 4 waterproof compartments.) A bunch of highly improbable events all came together to sink the unsinkable ship.
My belief is that one of the reasons the Borden case has remained unsolved is there was one or more IMPROBABLE events that occurred, that the defense used to place reasonable doubt. What if they had found the bloody hatchet hidden in the lining under Lizzie's bed? Yea, she could have argued it was placed there by the killer, but it would have made things look much worse for her.
Logic dictates that we look at probable reasons for something first, then more and more improbable ones. If we ignore the improbable, we risk not solving the mystery.

Fair enough, Possum, and I think that's the right approach, and it's the approach I've been taking.

I brought in Villisca for reasons of comparison. Another comparison: the heads of the victims in Villisca were smashed many,many times. The killer even went back after killing to smash more, I think. There were ax marks in the ceiling which the investigators concluded was because the killer was swinging his ax around in some kind of celebratory or ecstatic frenzy.

In the Borden case, investigators assume that the great number of "whacks" indicates the killer new the victims because of the emotion involved. This is wrong conclusion. I don't think the number of blows tells us anything about whether the killer knew them. A serial killer would kill in a frenzy also.

Another interesting thing in Villisca was the use by the killer of a wash basin to partly clean up. The ax only partially cleaned, and the killer was not rushed. In fact, he seems to have made himself dinner(which he didn't eat). This makes me wonder if the washing is more ritualistic and symbolic as opposed to functional. This probably sheds no light on the Borden case,but I did think of the bucket in the cellar.

PossumPie wrote: ...
Logic dictates that we look at probable reasons for something first, then more and more improbable ones. If we ignore the improbable, we risk not solving the mystery.

I certainly agree.

The Borden case remains still unsolved. Could we say that it is probably because that the improbable hypothesis have not been sufficiently considered?

The police in many countries seem to fall down on the job. I'm reminded of the horrific Hinterkaifeck murders in Germany in 1922. These occurred in a remote farmhouse and in spite of lengthy police investigations (and presumably intensive searches) the pick axe that killed all six members of the household was found a YEAR later, secreted in the attic, still with blood and hair on it.

Those are the kinds of examples I was hoping to find, Curry,thank you for that.

You're welcome. I'm just fascinated by unsolved murders, from the Ripper in England to the Gatton murders in Queensland! I should find a better hobby!

PossumPie wrote:Interesting, thanks. I did my Master's Thesis on Serial Killers' psychological profiles. One thing that REALLY bothers me about the Borden case is the amount of time between killings. Serial killers (almost always sexual predators but sometimes for profit, or excitement), all have something in common. People say "Oh, they must be crazy" BUT they are very smart from the standpoint of not being caught. It is usually something stupid that they do when they feel overly confident that get's them nabbed. It just does not fit any modus operandi of any serial killer, spree killer, or 'thrill' killer to wait around an hour and a half. They are good at getting in, killing, and getting out. I would not even bother studying this case if it weren't for the long amount of time between killings, b/c if it weren't for that, I would assume it was a random 'spree homicide' with no motive other than the thrill of killing. BUT the long amount of time between Mrs. and Mr. Borden tell me it MUST have been someone intimately knowledgeable with the family and their routine. After all to sit for 90 min waiting for Mr. Borden to come home would take majorly large metallic testicles.

I've been wanting to reply to a few of these threads but had to wait until my account was activated. So forgive me if I am backtracking. PossumPie are you familiar with the case of Richard Speck just to name one? He spent several hours inside the living quarters of eight nurses systematically killing them all one by one. Three of them arrived home while the murders were taking place.

Excellent example.

Yes, indeed, and welcome FactFinder, from a fellow newbie. Hope you enjoy posting and debating!

When comparing murderers, we have to have a background understanding. There are many who are just average intelligence who impulsively murder out of rage. They get caught b/c there is a link between them and the victim, and evidence they left behind. Then there are the more intelligent, charismatic killers like Ted Bundy. People liked him, trusted him, he didn't look or act like a killer. He was smart enough to plan his crimes, his downfall was that his sexual drives got so strong that he escalated his attacks, giving more hints as to his identity. He wouldn't have been caught except for a very stupid attempt on a young girl in Florida, he had escalated past his ability to cover up. Richard Speck had no history of murder, but he had a very long history of crime. He was a 'stupid' criminal, getting caught at almost every attempt. He killed b/c the system kept giving him another chance. The night of the killings, he was like the chicken in the hen house. He didn't plan them out, but let his genitals run the show. He stayed there all night, not b/c he had planned it well, but b/c he was sexually aroused, and didn't seem to care if he got caught. He was probably not psychopathic b/c he had attempted suicide right after the attacks, even before the police were on to him. It was more like the School shooters who go in for one "Big Fling" knowing afterwards they will kill themselves, or be killed by the police. This is NOT psychopathic behavior.

In the Borden case, I can see no motive for sexual reasons, robbery, thrill, or anything else. A thrill killer would have gone after Lizzie after Andrew, and lastly Bridget before leaving. The Borden killings had such a long time between them, that a killer would have been thinking, planning, worrying. There must have been one heck of a strong motive to stay in the house for an hour and a half doing NOTHING. It wasn't like the killer was having fun raping the corpes of Mrs. Borden, or exploring for money and jewels. Nothing was taken, and the body was not molested. No, they had a strong motive that overpowered the feeling that they had better get away before getting caught. I can think of nothing except Lizzie's desire for money. Doesn't make it correct, but other reasons don't make sense.

Often, when I bring up the hour and a half between killings, people will bring up other instances. Many of these were out in the country, isolated and at night where there was no chance of someone discovering them. Many are because the killer was looking for valuables. Some were sexual in nature, the killer was killing only to cover up for the sexual behavior. Villisca has the potential for sexual motive b/c a 12 year old visitor had signs of sexual contact perimortem. The Borden case took place in broad daylight, the middle of a city, with house members awake coming and going. I can think of a lot better time and location for a 'random' ax murder.

One quick point. Speck did not attempt suicide until after the police had connected him with the murders. It was after his picture had appeared on the front page of the newspaper. He was identified in the hospital by a nurse who recognized the Born To Raise Hell Tattoo that had appeared in the newspapers as an identifying mark. The police were called in to arrest him. It was indeed not the first murder Speck had committed, but he had not been arrested for the prior murder because he disappeared after being questioned. He was responsible for robberies and rapes before the night he murdered the eight nurses. He also abused his wife. Most killers started out committing other acts of violence until it escalates to murder. If the murders were planned or not really has no bearing for me on whether or not the killer would stay inside the home for an extended period of time. There are so many cases where this has happened I don't think that needs questioned. Gary Ridgway had an IQ of 82 (low intelligence.) He murdered an estimated 48 people starting in the 1980's and did not get caught until 2001. After an entire task force had been devoted to finding the identity of the Green River Killer. His killings were sexual in nature and he killed prostitutes. They had even had him in custody on other charges during the investigation when they took hair and saliva samples from him. He took and passed a polygraph test. That was in 1987. He was not arrested because of the DNA match until 2001. All with an IQ of 82 he managed to kill and evade a police task force created for the sole purpose of finding him over 20 years.

When comparing the background of a murder it is helpful if we realize that even those who are not so intelligent still get lucky and get away with it. Bundy was caught in part because of his attempted attack on the girl that failed. But he also outsmarted the police even after he was caught with his escapes. He was indeed very intelligent. But many serial killers get away with it not because they are smart, but because their victims are random, there is no readily apparent connection at first (especially if they don't stick to a certain method of killing or victims with similar characteristics), they are smart enough to know not to leave evidence like semen (everyone knows about DNA), and the police conduct shoddy investigations. I think after any murder, no matter what the motive is, or who the killer is, they would be worried about being caught spending a long interval inside the crime scene. Unless they planned to die afterward. The Borden house was locked up like Fort Knox day and night. And at night you would have to contend with a front or back door lock (Or the basement door), and then all of the various bedrooms being locked, to even get to your victims. There would be an entire family at home to hear you working at the locks instead of just the intended victims and the maid.