Lizzie Borden Society Forum

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

This is a very beautiful sentence and many members of the forum love it. Me too.

However, before eliminating the impossible, we must prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, its impossibility.

I have been always asking myself: what is (are) impossible in the Borden case? Can we prove its (their) impossibility?

Oh, welcome back, Franz! I knew you wouldn't be able to resist coming back to the Borden case! Could I start by saying that in my opinion it was impossible for Lizzie to tell the truth about her whereabouts just before her father was killed! It was also impossible for Emma to have direct involvement in her parents' murders, though I wouldn't mind betting, on no evidence at all, that she knew that Lizzie was primed up to do something before she left for her holiday.

Curryong wrote:...in my opinion it was impossible for Lizzie to tell the truth about her whereabouts just before her father was killed!...

Thank you for your welcome.

I am not sure if we could say in this manner. In my opinion, it could be possible for Lizzie to tell the truth about where she was and what she was doing when her father was being killed. What actually happened was just that she had chosen not to tell the truth.

All right Franz, you have me intrigued. Why did Lizzie choose not to tell the truth? Can I guess? Was it because she was shielding someone else?

Curryong wrote:All right Franz, you have me intrigued. Why did Lizzie choose not to tell the truth? Can I guess? Was it because she was shielding someone else?

Why did Lizzie choose not to tell the truth?

Well, one of the possible answers is that she was, instead of being in the barn, killing her father. But, infortunately, this is not the unique possible answer. This is only one of (many) possible answers.

We can prove that Lizzie lied about what she was doing in the barn. We can prove it because her different versions are there. But we can't prove that her statement of being in the barn was a lie. We just can't prove it. We can't! She had certainly lied about what she was doing in the barn, meanwhile, she could have told the truth saying that she was in the barn while her father was being killed. It's not impossbile. Because it's not impossible, we couldn't eliminate this possibility when we consider the Borden case.

欢迎 back Franz!!!!!

We have to look at this two ways-- and I suggest we all try! Lizzie was innocent or she did it...

Innocent: No need to lie initially, could have been in shock-- and then felt the need to lie as she knew she was suspected and panicked.

Guilty: No choice but to lie or confess

Aamartin wrote:欢迎 back Franz!!!!!

谢谢！Aamartin, you are so kind!

Yes, Lizzie could be guilty or innocent. After the discovery of her father's body and after being asked what she was doing, Lizzie, at the very first moments, begun to give contradictory versions about what she was doing in the barn. This could mean that Lizzie was the killer, so she lied. But, as I have said many times, this could mean as well that Lizzie wanted to cover what she was actually doing in the barn: what she actually did, alone in that dark place, could be considered scandalous at that time. This is not impossbile. Allen, among others, had been objecting to this hypothesis of mine in her latest posts. I hope to be able to continue the discussion with her and others.

Lizzie's never really struck me as a woman who would necessarily panic if she thought she was being suspected, Aa, but I certainly think she should have picked a story about her whereabouts at the time of the two murders and stuck to it, guilty or innocent.
All the evasions, all the fibs, the several different locations during the morning, really came back with a vengeance when she was cross-examined at the Inquest. Diid she not think that the different police officials who questioned her wouldn't compare notes? Or that it wouldn't all be collated together for a possible trial?

Curryong wrote:Lizzie's never really struck me as a woman who would necessarily panic if she thought she was being suspected, Aa, but I certainly think she should have picked a story about her whereabouts at the time of the two murders and stuck to it, guilty or innocent.
All the evasions, all the fibs, the several different locations during the morning, really came back with a vengeance when she was cross-examined at the Inquest. Diid she not think that the different police officials who questioned her wouldn't compare notes? Or that it wouldn't all be collated together for a possible trial?

I don't think she thought that far ahead (if she did it) to come up with a story and stick with it.

Yes, to me that is one of the oddest things about this case. As I think you've guessed I am a 'Lizzie is guilty' person. However, as I believe she may have been planning to do away with her stepmother for some time (fires I believe her sister Emma stoked) I can't understand why she didn't plan a decent alibi/story for herself. Surely if you plan to murder someone then what happens afterwards would have to come into your brain at some point.

Curryong wrote:Yes, to me that is one of the oddest things about this case. As I think you've guessed I am a 'Lizzie is guilty' person. However, as I believe she may have been planning to do away with her stepmother for some time (fires I believe her sister Emma stoked) I can't understand why she didn't plan a decent alibi/story for herself. Surely if you plan to murder someone then what happens afterwards would have to come into your brain at some point.

I'm on the fence- I came believing she didn't do it and now, I'm not sure. I am one of those people who read crime stories (true) and picking out all of the things the police did wrong. I see plenty here and it could sway things.

Curryong wrote:Yes, to me that is one of the oddest things about this case. As I think you've guessed I am a 'Lizzie is guilty' person. However, as I believe she may have been planning to do away with her stepmother for some time (fires I believe her sister Emma stoked) I can't understand why she didn't plan a decent alibi/story for herself. Surely if you plan to murder someone then what happens afterwards would have to come into your brain at some point.

Planning a murder without thinking of a reasonable alibi for herself is odd, unless the murders were not planned but occurred in a fit of anger about something Abby said to Lizzie, that was going to take place that day.

We know Andrew and Uncle John were deep in conversation and had stayed up late the night before, and that Andrew had asked Uncle John to come back for lunch the next day. If their conversation the night before had been about Andrew drawing up a will and naming Abby as the sole beneficiary, and then the next morning Abby had made the mistake of mentioning this to Lizzie along with a comment of leaving nothing to Lizzie and Emma, this could have made Lizzie angry enough to kill Abby. She would then need to kill her father, because if she didn’t he would still have the option of leaving everything to Abby’s family.

Lizzie had a half baked alibi during the time her father was killed, but if I recall correctly, she never left the house during the time Abby was killed.

I see what you mean, twinsrwe.

If Lizzie were guilty and she didn't premeditate the murders but they "occurred in a fit of anger" just in the morning of August 4th, as you said (in this way we could more esaily explain why Lizzie didn't prepare a good alibi for her). If so, we might think:

1. The woman who purchased the poison was not Lizzie; or if she was Lizzie, Lizzie purchased the poison for an innocent purpose (because the idea of killing passed in her mind only in the morning of August 4th.) Do you think so?

2. The conversation between Lizzie and Alice in the evening of August 3rd could not be a false background intentionally prepared by Lizzie for her killing, but all Lizzie said to Alice meant that Lizzie did worry about her father's safety. Do you think so?

(P.S.: Even though, after having killed Abby, did Lizzie decide immediately to kill her father as well? or did she take such a decision only while seeing her father enter in the house? In the first case, it seems to me odd as well that Lizzie, in that one hour or so, didn't prepare a good alibi for her: at least she might have invented a story and then sticked on it, instead of changing her story several times.)

The following is all speculation on my part:

If Lizzie were the killer, then I would think her emotions would have taken over any logical thinking for an alibi. Lizzie may have acted like a “sphinx of coldness”, but she was a human being who did have emotions, whether she expressed those emotions openly or not. Her alibi for where she was when Abby was killed is a very poor one, because she did not leave the house, nor did Abby, and that left her wide open for being suspected. Her alibi for where she was when Andrew was killed is better, because she said she went to the barn, although she changed her story as to why she was in the barn – again this throws suspicion in her direction. I think after brutally killing two people, she was not in a state of mind to come up with good solid alibis of where she was during the time when both Abby and Andrew were killed.

1. Poison was never purchased, because a prescription from a doctor was the only way the pharmacist would sell it to anyone.
2. If those murders did occurred in a fit of anger, then I think the conversation between Alice and Lizzie the night before was Lizzie simply worrying about Andrew’s safety. However, if the murders were preplanned, then that conversation would have been Lizzie’s way of saying, ‘See I told you something bad was going to happen.'

I think in the 90 minute time span between Abby and Andrews deaths, Lizzie had to have time to get her emotions under control, and then focused on how her father would take learning of Abby’s death as well as if he would immediately suspect her of the deed, and then if he would decide to disinherit her. After thinking about all of these things, she knew she had to kill her father as well, and therefore would need time to contemplated on how she would kill him, a man she supposedly loved.

I agree with you, twinsrwe. In that 90 minutes or so between the murders Lizzie MUST have come to the realisation that she could not let her father live. Even if he did not immediately suspect her she would have been afraid that by some tone, some expression, some slip-up, she would betray herself in front of him and he would guess the truth. Then, the very best she could hope for would be incarceration in some discreet private asylum. No money for her to enjoy, and certainly no freedom.

Thanks, Curryong. I agree with everything you posted.

Curryong wrote:I agree with you, twinsrwe. In that 90 minutes or so between the murders Lizzie MUST have come to the realization that she could not let her father live. Even if he did not immediately suspect her she would have been afraid that by some tone, some expression, some slip-up, she would betray herself in front of him and he would guess the truth. Then, the very best she could hope for would be incarceration in some discreet private asylum. No money for her to enjoy, and certainly no freedom.

I agree-- I think that if there was any planning-- Abby was meant to be the only victim. Once she died the way she did, the killer had no choice but to kill Andrew as well.

And the question has to be asked. If she was innocent, why was Lizzie spared?

twinsrwe wrote:...
1. Poison was never purchased, because a prescription from a doctor was the only way the pharmacist would sell it to anyone.
...

Thank you, twinsrwe. I should have been more precise: the woman who tried to purchase...

Franz wrote:... Thank you, twinsrwe. I should have been more precise: the woman who tried to purchase...

You're welcome, Franz. If the murders did occur in a fit of anger, and if Lizzie did attempt to purchase poison then it probably was for an innocent purpose, although I do have to wonder why anyone would want to clean a sealskin cape with poison.

Actually, I have wondered, (pure speculation of course) whether she attempted to purchase it for the purposes of committing suicide. It's not a common poison for that purpose, it's true, but it's very quick. I think everything's over in a few seconds.

If she thought that any attempt at murder might go disastrously wrong or if she wondered how she would cope under the prospect of imminent arrest, Prussic acid could be a possibility. It's just not much use as a mysterious poison. Any doctor, in the 19th century or this one, would recognise the sweet smell of Prussic acid, and the results would show up in autopsy, anyway.

Then there would be the awkwardness, after poisoning her parents, of Bridget, (chief Cook and bottle washer) as chief suspect in the eyes of the police. To do her credit, Lizzie never attempted to cast suspicion on anyone else. Just a thought!

I have to admit, I do respect Lizzie for not casting suspicion on anyone else. IF she murdered the old folks-- she did have some scruples. This is one of many points that always leaves a tiny bit of doubt in my mind about the entire case!

Franz – What do you think about Amanda Knox? I'm asking you here where you'll be sure to see it but the topic more properly belongs in Stay to Tea so I've cross-posted there.

I'm not Franz and it's not my business, but she did it, in my opinion, but not alone.

My opinion on Amanda changes about the same way my opinion on Lizzie changes. Clearly the sentiment in the news here in the US is that she's been the victim of an erratic Italian justice system. But what we read here is often a filtered version so I'm interested in your view, too, actually everyone's.

debbiediablo wrote:My opinion on Amanda changes about the same way my opinion on Lizzie changes. Clearly the sentiment in the news here in the US is that she's been the victim of an erratic Italian justice system. But what we read here is often a filtered version so I'm interested in your view, too, actually everyone's.

Guilty or Not Guilty isn't about truth. Truth is unchanging, eternal. The legal system (Italian, American, or whatever) is NOT about the truth but about who's lawyer is the best, and who's Law enforcement and prosecutes are the most inept.

Aamartin wrote:I have to admit, I do respect Lizzie for not casting suspicion on anyone else. IF she murdered the old folks-- she did have some scruples. This is one of many points that always leaves a tiny bit of doubt in my mind about the entire case!

Well said, Anthony!

PossumPie wrote:

debbiediablo wrote:My opinion on Amanda changes about the same way my opinion on Lizzie changes. Clearly the sentiment in the news here in the US is that she's been the victim of an erratic Italian justice system. But what we read here is often a filtered version so I'm interested in your view, too, actually everyone's.

Guilty or Not Guilty isn't about truth. Truth is unchanging, eternal. The legal system (Italian, American, or whatever) is NOT about the truth but about who's lawyer is the best, and who's Law enforcement and prosecutes are the most inept.

Yes you are right PossumPie. But we are here in a forum, not a court. We are not lawyers for none of those characters involved in the case. So my vocalubary is, when I say "I think Lizzie is not guilty", I don't mean that Lizzie's guilt was not proved so she was not guilty. but I mean that in my opinion the truth is that Lizzie didn't kill. So in my vocabulary in this forum guilty or not guilty is about truth.

debbiediablo wrote:Franz – What do you think about Amanda Knox? I'm asking you here where you'll be sure to see it but the topic more properly belongs in Stay to Tea so I've cross-posted there.

I haven't followed the case regularly. I can't say.