Lizzie Borden Society Forum

One of the few things that niggles at my belief of Lizzie's guilt, especially after Andrew's death -- how did she hold it together physically? Sure she had the morphine-- but wouldn't you imagine her arms and shoulders were sore, especially the next day? That is a lot of work-- chopping someone to death.

I agree, Anthony. I would think someone close to her in the next day or two would notice if she was favoring her arms or shoulders.

I used to split wood for the fireplace with a mall and splitting wedge into my early 50s, and my hand-eye coordination is such that hitting a golf ball or the wedge were hit or miss with a lot more miss. So there was a lot of swinging an 8 lb mall over my head. I never ached the following day. On the other hand I probably did more physical work in a half day than Lizzie did in a week even though I've always been a deskbound professional. Following cancer surgery and two knee replacements, hydromorphone is my all-time favorite painkiller. Even a low dose would make Lizzie's aches and pains dissipate.

She was probably treated like delicate china for the next day or two, with Alice and Mrs Charles Holmes fussing around her, making her rest and serving her meals etc, plus Dr Bowen's medication soothing the aches and pains.

I still remember reading when I first joined the forum some gossip a couple of old biddies had spread about Fall River, regarding Lizzie going to a gym in the Troy building down town and building up her strength on the equipment there.

How exactly you would be able to bend and breathe while you were wielding the hatchet is another matter, considering she was wearing corsets and a constricting dress.

If Lizzie was the killer, and her arms and shoulders were sore the next day, do you really think she would say or do anything to draw attention to this fact? Personally, I don't believe she would. I believe she would have maintained the silence of the Sphinx.

Curryong wrote:She was probably treated like delicate china for the next day or two, with Alice and Mrs Charles Holmes fussing around her, making her rest and serving her meals etc, plus Dr Bowen's medication soothing the aches and pains.

I still remember reading when I first joined the forum some gossip a couple of old biddies had spread about Fall River, regarding Lizzie going to a gym in the Troy building down town and building up her strength on the equipment there.

How exactly you would be able to bend and breathe while you were wielding the hatchet is another matter, considering she was wearing corsets and a constricting dress.

I forgot about the medication given to her from Dr. Bowen. And I'm guessing that if it was true she was working out, she must not have been in a corset or such a constricting dress (even if she was the murderer, she probably wasn't wearing them).

This issue speaks to one of my arguments to why Lizzie did not wheel the axe.

LIttle story.

I use to workout a lot. A friend of mine who was into boxing asked me if I could go a 2 minute round with a punching bag, at speed.

I saw no problem with that, and I prepared as he set up his stopwatch.

When he said 'GO', I went full speed hitting the bag. I was in good shape and I hit the bag for as long as I could till I just couldn't anymore. I was too tired. When I asked him how long it had been, he said less than a minute. He knew I was strong. But strength and endurance are two different things. He knew that and had a good laugh.

What I am getting at here is not the speed of blows, ((19 of them) but the accuracy. After so many blows you tire and become careless or less precise.

Now, not to jump on the back of the fairer sex, it is a difficult thing to do, to swing away 19 times and make every blow count. You would think that there would have been one or two that hit the floor or the arm of the sofa. (at least a wandering blow was never mentioned) After swinging the axe 19 times the killer swung it another 11........that is 30 chops without a miss.

To me that talks of experience, muscle, and to a man. (?)

Though, we must take into account the rage. And there was rage to hit to old lady 19 times. Even half that would have been plenty. Thus there was some sort of emotional connection.

If someone, even a stranger, had a business deal with Andrew Borden, in which they lost everything, money, house, and the wife ran off. (?) This would give them the needed emotional connection.

Another thing to consider. It is easier to hit someone in the back of the head as apposed to having them face you. Also easier to tell that the person is dead if they're looking up at you, which could speak to Andrew only receiving 11 blows.

Though in the core of my belief, I think Lizzie, for sure......and Bridget, Morse, Emma, etc. had an idea of who was behind it. (If Lizzie didn't plan it)

Who knows? Perhaps as the killer swung away, Lizzie stood nearby with a stopwatch.

Nobody was ever found bankrupted and ruined by Andrew in such a way. in Fall River or in the district though, MB. The police made inquiries into Andrew's business affairs, examined the safe. No-one came forward and said "So and so had a motive. He was real bitter at Mr Borden because he lost everything a year ago." Gossip was flying around Fall River like confetti in the first week after the murders. The police would have picked up on it, for sure.

Also, in that case, why kill Abby first, or at all? Rage was shown in both murders. Lizzie could overpower Abby physically, she couldn't do that with a male, even an old male. It was no coincidence that Andrew was attacked while lying prone and snoozing.
Adrenaline, hatred (for Abby, at least) and rage can fuel a lot of things, including strength Lizzie probably couldn't believe she possessed under normal circumstances.

Mystery, when I first joined the forum we were having a discussion about the clothing of the 1890's and I made a joke about Lizzie leaving off her corsets to kill Abby, to ease the physical exertion. Another poster, can't remember who now, rightly pointed out that the dresses of the time were cut in such a way that you couldn't get into them if you weren't wearing corsets, (unless you were terribly thin, which Lizzie wasn't.)

Lizzie would have had to be fully dressed for Andrew's murder (though covered up, I believe) as she simply would not have had time to change afterwards. For Abby's killing, who knows, though I tend to think she wore the paint-stained dress (which she later burned) for both.

Adrenalin makes super heroes out of mere mortals.

A hammer weighs around 1 1/2 lbs. A lathing hatchet weighs twice that much plus a few ounces. I cannot imagine a woman Lizzie's age being unable to pound a nail 39 times in two sessions separated by 90 minutes. Double the weight of the weapon and use two hands for strength and stability, and I don't see either strength or aim being an issue for a woman fueled by rage.

I think we are all in agreement, that the killer was filled with a tremendous amount of rage; especially toward Abby.

Rage can sometimes lead to a state of mind where the individual experiencing it believes, and often is capable of doing things that may normally seem physically impossible. Those experiencing rage usually feel the effects of high adrenaline levels in the body. This increase in adrenal output raises the physical strength and endurance levels of the person and sharpens their senses, while dulling the sensation of pain. … A person in a state of rage may also lose much of his or her capacity for rational thought and reasoning, and may act, usually violently, on his or her impulses to the point that they may attack until they themselves have been incapacitated or the source of their rage has been destroyed. A person in rage may also experience tunnel vision, muffled hearing, increased heart rate and hyperventilation. … They often focus only on the source of their anger.

(Highlighting is mine).

https://viktormar.wordpress.com/2014/10 ... e-emotion/

Fight / Flight quickly fills the body with energy. As long as you use up this energy, e.g. if you run or fight, you do not get any side-effects. But if you don't use up the energy, it gets trapped inside you. If you face a mental or social threat, you do not fight or run so the energy gets trapped. …

http://glasgowspcmh.org.uk/information/stress/fight

Taking the above information into account, I believe a woman is just as capable of committing the Borden murders as man is.

I don't think she would have been sore or anything. There is also a big difference between swinging with all of one's strength or holding the handle closer to the head of the hatchet (a woman thing), and kind of pounding away at close range. I could see this happening with the last 12 or more whacks to Abby's head. Probably not to Andrew. I think he was hit harder.

Maybe Andrew was having an affair with someone. I was reading about the prostitutes in Fall River so you never know what happen. The only thing I agree so far is that rage was behind the over-kill.

Right you are Curry':

The fact that Andrew was a hated man has been exaggerated through history.

One reads books about the case and authors play up and emphasize the fact that he was hated a little much.


Being a banker, I'm certain that there were a bunch of people who weren't happy with him. Especially if he went around buying property from those who were about to loose it anyway. If the bank took my house, I'm certain I wouldn't have anything nice to say about it if asked. And Hiram Harrington didn't help matters much.

Banking, not to long ago, was a personal venture. Dealing with the local banker, you got to know the banker and he could bend the rules for you a bit. Today everything is managed through credit scores and numbers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Irina: Holding a hammer or axe closer to the head of the implement gives you more control. I remember working with a carpenter when I was a kid and having him call me a Tat-ta, every time he caught me holding the hammer halfway up on the handle. Though the control was better the force was diminished. "Hold that hammer the right way, kid," he would yell, "or go home and put on your skirt." I guess it was a guy thing for him. I should have showed up at work with a dress on. Then he would have had something to complain about.

Yes Twins:

My issue had to do with accuracy. Of course the less strength you have the less accurate you will be.

But it's like trying something for the first time... horseshoes, darts, catching a ball, etc.

You would have to have done it before or practice to be good at it.

Who ever copped the Bordens up was pretty good at using a hatchet/axe. Thirty hits for thirty swings.

Though I subscribe to such sentiments, I'm not 100% certain that Lizzie did not do it. The first time I ever fired a gun it was a 44 magnum, heavy thing, and I got almost 5 bulls eyes out of 6 shots. The fella I was with was impressed. Though I couldn't do it again for the remainder of the night.

Eye-hand coordination is very important in these things too, I'm sure. It would be easier if Lizzie had been an enthusiastic 'lady golfer' of the time or enjoyed regular tennis matches. We do know she rode horses sometimes and quite liked fishing, though whether that requires any hand and eye coordination and strength I'm not quite sure. (I only fished as a child and have never regularly ridden horses.)

Curryong wrote:Eye-hand coordination is very important in these things too, I'm sure. It would be easier if Lizzie had been an enthusiastic 'lady golfer' of the time or enjoyed regular tennis matches. We do know she rode horses sometimes and quite liked fishing, though whether that requires any hand and eye coordination and strength I'm not quite sure. (I only fished as a child and have never regularly ridden horses.)

True fly fishing requires excellent hand-eye coordination, but I don't think that's the fishing equipment Lizzie was looking for in the barn...if she was even in the barn.

No, I don't believe Lizzie was in or near the barn, either. As ever, she changed her story. At first she said dhe was looking for tin to fix a faulty fly screen. As the fly screens were all perfect she realised that bird wouldn't fly, so the story was changed to sinkers. She intended to shop for some lines later, so she told police, so a shopping expedition seems to have been firmly in mind.

I believe Lizzie was in fact outside and/or near the barn, if not in the barn.

I believe that she was out there for one of two reasons. To be out of the way while her father was killed. Or to make certain the coast was clear so the real killer could escape unseen. (Though, with men working in the Crow yard and busy street traffic, it would have been difficult to cultivate an escape without being seen.

As to whether she did or did not go into the barn, I have no concrete opinion, just that she was in the yard. Making up stories about Iron to fix a screen or looking for sinkers was not so much as an alibi for when her father was killed as much as it was to cover up the fact that someone may had seen her in the yard.

We must remember that Hyman Lubinsky, the ice cream peddler, saw a women in the yard at the time AB was killed, and he was certain it was not the maid.

Yes, Bridget would be shopping for fabric and Lizzie would be shopping for fishing line and two corpses would burn in the house...and if no one looked too closely, arson would disguise murder. I am more and more convinced that Lizzie's conversation with Alice foreshadowed her plans which might include some man coming in to kill father which is what MB thinks happened. What I cannot figure out is what caused her to abandon the fire for "someone" coming in to kill father. I also wonder, as the Herald article in another thread states, whether Abby's body was partially under the bed when found (as far under as it would go).

The more I read Parallel Lives, the more I'm convinced that Lizzie didn't do it OR if she had, she snapped and did it. The overall feeling of what I'm reading and the comments made by those who knew her, someone else did it.

Think about some of the more infamous serial killers - BTK and Ted Bundy come to immediate mind - and then about what their neighbors, friends and even family said about them before and after the crimes. Dennis Rader was elected President of Christ Lutheran Church Council and was a Cub Scout leader. He installed alarm systems in houses where the occupants' express purpose was protection from BTK. Bundy worked side by side with Ann Rule at a suicide hotline. At the time Rule was writing true crime stories under a pseudonym and later wrote The Stranger Beside Me. She held a criminology degree, came from a family of law enforcement officials, and met Bundy after she had begun working for the Seattle Police Department. I haven't read Parallel Lives so I don't know what was said about Lizzie, but I do know that very few people truly recognize who-what is talking to them over the backyard fence or staring them in the face at the breakfast table.

I think you could be right Debbie. I have The Stranger Beside Me and Ann Rule is one of my favorite authors. It's just...I don't know...I can't explain it.

I agree. There was a case in England of a man who was caught between his fiancé and another girl he was attracted to. His fiancé came down to the country where he was living and wound up dead. He obviously panicked and chopped her up, burying her bits and her luggage on his chicken farm.

He was a devout church goer, (Methodist) a temperance advocate and a Boy's Brigade youth leader, a young man regarded as well mannered and from a wonderful family. All of which he was. At his trial his defence was that his fiancée had hanged herself when he was out. He had come back found her and panicked.

A defence witness at the trial spent a long time in the box talking about this wonderful young man who had been such a help in the church. The prosecuting counsel got up to cross-examine, and asked him "So he is not the sort of man, in your opinion, who would saw his fiancee's head off, squash it into a tin and bury it?"

As the man on trial had admitted that was exactly what he had done in his panic, what could the defence witness say but "No, I would never dream he would do such a thing."

The effect was immediate, and the accused was found guilty and hanged. There are many, many examples of people who have murdered who have been pillars of their community.

Curry, you think she did it?

Plus, given the right set of circumstances and our own ability to process options almost any of us is capable of almost anything.

mbhenty wrote:Yes Twins:

My issue had to do with accuracy. Of course the less strength you have the less accurate you will be.

But it's like trying something for the first time... horseshoes, darts, catching a ball, etc.

You would have to have done it before or practice to be good at it.

Who ever copped the Bordens up was pretty good at using a hatchet/axe. Thirty hits for thirty swings.

Though I subscribe to such sentiments, I'm not 100% certain that Lizzie did not do it. The first time I ever fired a gun it was a 44 magnum, heavy thing, and I got almost 5 bulls eyes out of 6 shots. The fella I was with was impressed. Though I couldn't do it again for the remainder of the night.

Yes, I picked up on your issue with accuracy. That was a vague part of my post as well. Let me explain: If a woman is filled with rage, her physical strength and endurance level increases. Her senses are sharpen, and she becomes focused on the source of her anger. Being focused gives her the ability to accurately hit the target she is focused on. Abby became a non-moving target after the first couple of blows, so from that point on the killer could easily hack away at her head until their anger subsided. Andrew was a non-moving target right from the get go.

I can easily see an exchange of words occurring between Abby and Lizzie, which threw Lizzie in a fit of blind rage, and she killed Abby. I believe Abby was the primary target. Andrew had to die because he would know it was Lizzie who killed his beloved wife; he would have disinherited her, and kicked her out of his house.

debbiediablo wrote:Plus, given the right set of circumstances and our own ability to process options almost any of us is capable of almost anything.

I agree, Debbie.

True, Debbie. However, my education is in criminal justice with an emphasis on crime scene investigation. Not much to go on there.

Yes, Mystery, I do think Lizzie killed Abby and Andrew.

Curryong wrote:Yes, Mystery, I do think Lizzie killed Abby and Andrew.

why? I'm not being difficult but trying to see what others see when they view Lizzie as the one who did it.

Well, three main reasons. I always look at murder cases with the classic --"Did this person have the means, the motive and the opportunity" to kill their victims?

As far as means go, a hatchet is a very unusual weapon for a female to use. Most female killers of the time poisoned their victims. However, Lizzie had tried, and failed, to purchase poison. Therefore, when, as I believe happened, something was said between Abby and Lizzie that morning, Lizzie, full of rage, attacked with a weapon I believe she had purchase or pinched months before for the visit to Marion.

As twins put it, Lizzie's physical senses and endurance all sharpened, fuelled by rage during that attack. Lizzie was not a large woman but Abby was older and obese. Her reactions may have been slow. Lizzie would have been able to overpower her.

I don't believe it was coincidental that Andrew was killed while he was lying prone. A young fit man, an intruder, would have thought nothing of taking on a man of his age. A woman would, however. And he was asleep.

I just don't believe in the intruder theory. Sorry, those that do, but I just don't. The front door was triple locked. The side door was not but no neighbour, no one on 2nd St., ever saw a male on Borden property that morning.

It just bears all the marks of a domestic murder. What's more a domestic murderer who hated the first victim so much that Abby's head bore about fourteen more strokes than would have been necessary to kill her. Bridget was outside washing the windows and chatting to the Kelly maid. Witnesses saw her. No witnesses saw Lizzie from about 9:30 to when her father came home.

The only person known to have been in that house besides Abby was Lizzie.

After her father came home at about 10:40am Lizzie made an attempt to get Bridget out of the house. She spoke to her about a sale of material, something she had NEVER done before. Bridget didn't respond, but went upstairs to her room.
She was therefore out of the way.

Lizzie was the only known person on the ground floor when Andrew was killed.

For her locales during the morning and before her father was killed, just get Lizzie's early witness statements to the police that Thursday and place them beside her inquest testimony. They are very interesting.

Now, you can say that anyone would be shocked, forgetful or muddled but not to the extent Lizzie was. For instance, you either hear a groan or you don't. It's not something you forget or change your story about.

Why, when she knew she was going to be arrested and only then did Lizzie burn her paint stained dress? Where was it hiding before that? Why did Lizzie produce a smart going out dress to the police and swear that she had worn it that Thursday morning when all the other witnesses, Alice, Bowen, Mrs Churchill couldn't identify it? Is that what an innocent woman would do?

As for motive, we can argue about that till the cows come home! Was it hatred and resentment to do with incest for years? Could Lizzie stand no more of Abby and the stifling life she lived at No 92? Did she and Emma fear that Andrew was going to hand over 'their' inheritance that they were ENTITLED to as Andrew's daughters, to Abby, whom they couldn't stand, bit by bit, while they grew older and remained on a tight allowance? Heaven knows! Could have been a combination of many things.

Curryong wrote:Well, three main reasons. I always look at murder cases with the classic --"Did this person have the means, the motive and the opportunity" to kill their victims?

While I think (and have expressed before) that the M/M/O triumvirate is counterproductive-- in practice it gives equal weight to way unequal factors, forces one to speculate on the unknowable, and draws attention from the evidence of the crime scene toward things not usually in evidence there-- I admire the rest of this post and have bookmarked it.

It is the most succinct and effective summation of the case against Lizzie I have seen.

I remain tentatively in favor of an intruder theory; but this is what I would hope to explain/counter in the process of building one.

Thank you, Curry for your reply! It's by far the most straightforward I've read in a while.

I for one don't believe that Lizzie swung the axe.

I don't believe that you can do so and not receive some blood splatter. 30 swings of an axe and not a drop? I also don't hold much confidence in the melon tests some experts have experimented with to prove splatter.

And then there is the axe. Where did it go? Some tend to ignore this tidbit.

I don't think Lizzie was that smart, to have planned the perfect murder alone. Though, there were hints by Lizzie that something was going to happen, that she feared for Father, fires, poison, etc. These were amateurish give-a-ways that she was involved.

Intruder? No.

Invited Patron? Yes.

I don't speak of an intruder or a 3rd party, but someone who subscribed to Lizzie's convictions that these people had to die. I don't exclude profit.

If I am to believe that Lizzie did the killings then I must conclude that the maid was in on it. That ample time was given to Lizzie to wash and that on her way to Alice's, Bridget did something with the axe. The maid could have been sucked into Lizzie's little plan in the heat of the moment and left to defend herself by claiming she saw nothing. (threatened by Lizzie?)

In concluding, do I think Lizzie Borden committed the murders? Yes! But not the dirty deed. There is someone else in the this picture, and not an idle intruder.

In the end I don't know what happened. We can only guess. But there are enough facts and signposts which lead us to a conclusion. One may be just as indispensable as the other. What facts we know paint more of a Picaso than a Mona Lisa.

And it is true. I have heard it by others, and again here on this forum. The more you read of Parallel Lives, the more you believe in Lizzie's innocence. Though I have read much of it, it has not changed my sentiments, notions or theory about what she did or did not.


No one can explain why Bridget did not see any blood on Lizzie, or to where the axe went.

One thing which does concern me is the rage issue. Who ever killed Abby had rage. Or did he/she?? They may have enjoyed it and not wanted to stop, thus the 19 whacks. Like a child who watches the The Little Mermaid 20 times, or my sister who went to the movies every day for a month to watch the same movie, 30 times—The Titanic.

Perhaps it did not need to be rage, but enjoyment, fascination, fear, enjoyment.

And in making my case I always finish by confessing one truth about whether Lizzie actually "did" kill.......by saying, I don't know and neither does anyone else. If we did, no one would entertain themselves with this forum.

No, none of us know and I wasn't really trying to change anyone's mind by posting the above summation of why I think she did murder, just responding to a request of Mystery's. Many posters have strong views both ways and won't ever change nor would anyone expect them to.

I have participated in speculations about where that darned hatchet went to on several threads. Also, the same with the blood splashes Lizzie may or may not have had on her. I didn't go into those in the above post because I didn't want to post an epistle! It's too detailed and too hard for people to read, I think, if you go on and on. I'm wordy enough as it is! I do enjoy posting on this Forum with all of you. Long may it continue!

Yes Curryong:

I was not challenging your post, nor was mine a reply to it. Just a reflection and my side of things. I was not responding to or accusing you of posting or not posting.

My apology if you took it that way.

My post was my view, a view which respects everyone else. I did not imply that you did not express your ideas or opinions about what happened to the axe or to the blood.... just what I thought about it. I never said you were wrong or that you did not know what you were talking about.

And when I say no one knows what really happened, I am grouping myself in that realm. As a matter of fact, it speaks more to me when I say it than those on this forum.

But I have been on here long enough to recognize that people are very passionate about their beliefs.

I am not about mine. You see they change. Why?......because I don't know.

So I hope you don't take my post as an assault or rude criticism of your post.....it is not.

Sorry if you took it that way.

mbhenty wrote:One thing which does concern me is the rage issue. Who ever killed Abby had rage. Or did he/she?? They may have enjoyed it and not wanted to stop, thus the 19 whacks. Like a child who watches the The Little Mermaid 20 times, or my sister who went to the movies every day for a month to watch the same movie, 30 times—The Titanic.

Perhaps it did not need to be rage, but enjoyment, fascination, fear, enjoyment.

Enjoyment...fascination...fear....enjoyment...For sure those are reasons for overkill but rarely found in a first-time murderer. I'm inclined to think that rage fueled the fires for both murders, but if it didn't, then the killer enjoyed killing and had done so multiple times before. Unlike enjoying a good movie or a new culinary masterpiece, those visceral tastes are most often developed and enhanced over time and experience. I've watched the slaughter of animals for food, and there's a huge difference between animal and human, especially a human one knows personally.

Yes Debbie:

The rage issue is one that easily speaks to Lizzie. With all the dissenting talk about who had enough hate in them, many newspapers, and those they interviewed, point their fingers at Lizzie. From everything I have read, (if it is to be believed) Lizzie had motive and much more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About who really did these murders we can talk about "so called experts, people who have written books—those like Radin, Sullivan, Lincoln, Kent, De mille, Spiering, Brown, and many others. I have read them all. (still picking over Parallel) And living in fall river I have pal'd around with a different group of Lizzie'acks. Probably the top 3 or 4 experts in the field. And living in a home that once belong to Lizzie brought me even closer to this crime.

But that being said, I have discovered one truth. And that is knowing these people, having long discussions with them, studying this case extensively, writing two books on the case, has not brought me any closer to discovering who did the murders, or has it lend any concrete validation to my conclusions.

It does not matter how much study or knowledge on acquires, it does not bring you any closer to what really happened. But we all have ideas. And everyone's is just as valid as, say, Leonard Rebello or even the authors of Parallel Lives.

Thanks, Curry, Debbie and Mb on your replies! I'm still working my way through Parallel Lives, determined not to skip any portion. All I can say is that we all agree on one thing: the murders were over-kill. Everyone has their thoughts regarding it and I guess if we had a solid answer as to what happened that morning, then we'd all lose interest in Lizzie and Fall River. One day, I'll come to visit.

I've been out all day (Aus time) hence my delay in replying. Not at all, Mb, I know you weren't being accusatory. I'm not being prickly or touchy or anything. We are all friends here. The problem is we can't see each other, and so things can come off a bit snarly or condescending or irritable when that isn't what is meant at all!

I just thought earlier that I'd better supply a bit of an explanation about my not going too much into the details of that ever-present hatchet mystery or Lizzie's lack of blood splatter. It was purely because of me being always conscious of being longwinded. Sometimes I get stuck into something and write half a novel when ten lines would do. It's been a habit I've tried unsuccessfully to break! I'd better finish now, in fact!

YES CURRYONG:

I fully understand the loss or misinterpretation experienced by conveying or interacting on computers. We are human animals and communication is not just verbal or script, there is facial expressions, hand gestures, and more importantly, tone of voice. All is lost in posting, thus misunderstanding can easily flourish.

I have found you very knowledgeable, with interesting insight, and prolific dispatch of ideas with possible if not plausible solutions.

Thus carry on!

mbhenty wrote:Yes Debbie:

The rage issue is one that easily speaks to Lizzie. With all the dissenting talk about who had enough hate in them, many newspapers, and those they interviewed, point their fingers at Lizzie. From everything I have read, (if it is to be believed) Lizzie had motive and much more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About who really did these murders we can talk about "so called experts, people who have written books—those like Radin, Sullivan, Lincoln, Kent, De mille, Spiering, Brown, and many others. I have read them all. (still picking over Parallel) And living in fall river I have pal'd around with a different group of Lizzie'acks. Probably the top 3 or 4 experts in the field. And living in a home that once belong to Lizzie brought me even closer to this crime.

But that being said, I have discovered one truth. And that is knowing these people, having long discussions with them, studying this case extensively, writing two books on the case, has not brought me any closer to discovering who did the murders, or has it lend any concrete validation to my conclusions.

It does not matter how much study or knowledge on acquires, it does not bring you any closer to what really happened. But we all have ideas. And everyone's is just as valid as, say, Leonard Rebello or even the authors of Parallel Lives.

For some of us (many of us) here who follow multiple unsolved murders/mysteries, the absolute solution to Lizzie or JtR would ultimately be a disappointment...it's too much fun throwing out theories. Although maybe I'm speaking for myself when using the term 'throwing out theories' as I am on the fence regarding Lizzie. I like to toss out ideas and watch them picked apart...or not. Probably the only murder mystery I'd like to know truth about is Villisca Axe/Billy the Axeman. Then we could debate the perversion that underpinned those crimes. I'm also from Iowa so it's sort of like being local to the Fall River area. Ed Epperly, arguably the world expert on Villisca, taught at my undergrad college until retirement...I was long gone before his tenure began but I still go back on a regular basis. The funny thing is for years Epperly kept the Villisca axe in his bedroom closet...which might be where I'd draw the line!

mbhenty wrote:Yes Debbie:

The rage issue is one that easily speaks to Lizzie. With all the dissenting talk about who had enough hate in them, many newspapers, and those they interviewed, point their fingers at Lizzie. From everything I have read, (if it is to be believed) Lizzie had motive and much more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About who really did these murders we can talk about "so called experts, people who have written books—those like Radin, Sullivan, Lincoln, Kent, De mille, Spiering, Brown, and many others. I have read them all. (still picking over Parallel) And living in fall river I have pal'd around with a different group of Lizzie'acks. Probably the top 3 or 4 experts in the field. And living in a home that once belong to Lizzie brought me even closer to this crime.

But that being said, I have discovered one truth. And that is knowing these people, having long discussions with them, studying this case extensively, writing two books on the case, has not brought me any closer to discovering who did the murders, or has it lend any concrete validation to my conclusions.

It does not matter how much study or knowledge on acquires, it does not bring you any closer to what really happened. But we all have ideas. And everyone's is just as valid as, say, Leonard Rebello or even the authors of Parallel Lives.

For some of us (many of us) here who follow multiple unsolved murders/mysteries, the absolute solution to Lizzie or JtR would ultimately be a disappointment...it's too much fun throwing out theories. Although maybe I'm speaking for myself when using the term 'throwing out theories' as I am on the fence regarding Lizzie. I like to toss out ideas and watch them picked apart...or not. Probably the only murder mystery I'd like to know truth about is Villisca Axe/Billy the Axeman. Then we could debate the perversion that underpinned those crimes. I'm also from Iowa so it's sort of like being local to the Fall River area. Ed Epperly, arguably the world expert on Villisca, taught at my undergrad college until retirement...I was long gone before his tenure began but I still go back on a regular basis. The funny thing is for years Epperly kept the Villisca axe in his bedroom closet...which might be where I'd draw the line!

I've decided to pop this 'under physical exertion' even if it's a bit off-topic, and has been mentioned before.

It's Parallel Lives page 227.

The visit to Marion. The ladies at Marion were staying at Dr Ben Handy's cottage as we know, 'living in a rough and ready way and were doing their own work'. (I presume no servants for cooking, cleaning etc.)

Reports stated that the responsibilities for the household were assigned and the question of who would handle chopping wood for the stove arose; Lizzie, it was said, 'agreed to take charge of that department' upon her arrival. According to the Fall River Daily Herald, Lizzie, when told that the axe at Marion was 'a dull affair' was said to have written that she would gladly chop would for the party as she had 'a very sharp hatchet'.

As we know, a lot of speculation, then and now, came from whether Lizzie wrote about sharp axes to her friends.

Parallel Lives tells of Officer Medley visiting the recipient of the letter, Elizabeth Johnston, who had been Lizzie's friend since childhood. Medley asked her about the letter and Medley reported that Miss Johnston refused 'to make known to me the contents until she had consulted Attorney Jennings." (Lizzie's lawyer.) Two days later she again met Medley and stated that she had spoken with Mr Jennings who had told her 'she need not tell the contents of the letter if she did not want to; and she did not want to".

So that was that. Parallel Lives then notes about the unlikelihood of Lizzie joking about sharp hatchets if she was planning murder. It goes into what might possibly be in the letter, as in expressions of fear as she had inferred to Alice, depressive thoughts, fears of poison, fire, harm to the family etc.

A school friend of Lizzie's called Lulie had referred to the strain of melancholia in Lizzie's character in a diary entry years before. Also, Lizzie, in recalling the Marion trip to Alice on that Wednesday evening had said "When I was at the table the other day, when I was at Marion, the girls were laughing and talking and having a good time and this feeling came over me and one of them spoke and said "Lizzie, why don't you talk?" '

In other words, what was actually written in the letter to Lizzie's friend at Marion will never be known. Whether it was about a new sharp hatchet or fears and depressions we are not likely to know, as Elizabeth Johnstone never divulged the contents of the letter or testified to it.

Her friends at Marion remained convinced of her innocence. Her religiosity, common sense and her straightforward nature were pointed to as examples of how she could never have murdered her parents.

You found it! I do wish that we knew what was in the letter or note. I do agree that I don't think Lizzie would have been joking about sharp hatches if she was planning murder.

I haven't gotten to it yet but there were 2 females who visited her at the jail and believed her to be innocent. Then they stopped coming (I think they changed their minds) but I have to go read why they changed their minds. It appears that her only staunchest friend was the female she wrote the letters to.

Yes, found it under 'Marion.' I suspect that there were all sorts of stories going around the town, both pro and anti Lizzie. Perhaps they did change their minds, perhaps their families objected to their prison-visiting, a not very respectable thing to do in those days. Lizzie was quite depressed and may have asked them to stop.

In considering whether or not Andrew had enemies, it wouldn't have to be a bunch of enemies. It was said he raised rents on business tenants if their businesses prospered. That's kind of nasty, but legal without a lease. All it would take would be one angry person who brooded, wasn't mentally stable and possibly drank too much. I'm not saying this happened but all it would take would be one unhappy customer who was capable of murder.

In general I agree with MB on his thoughts. At this point, with all the knowledge we have, it is necessary to consider that Lizzie may have been outside or in the barn to cover for someone else. I have an idea she was not outside at all but the apparent lies about the barn leave the door open to speculate.

As far as physical strength used to commit the murders I believe if anyone male or female, swung that hatchet that many times, with the strength and efficiency necessary to chop kindling, there wouldn't have been any heads left on the victims~just pulp. Whoever did it did it inefficiently, perhaps held the handle close to the head. The latter would be similar to pounding with a rock or a mezza luna knife, and IMO would not take a great degree of strength.

let us assume Andrew did raise rent on thriving businesses... Why no credit for giving the struggling ones a break by NOT doing so?

Hiram Harrington, married to Andrew's sister Lurana, couldn't stand Andrew (and apparently wasn't overly fond of Lizzie either.) he told the Fall River Daily Globe August 1892

'Mr Borden was an exceedingly hard man concerning money matters, determined and stubborn, and when once he got an idea nothing could change him. He was too hard for me. When his father died some years ago he offered my wife the old homestead on Ferry St for a certain sum of money. My wife preferred to take the money, and after the agreements were all signed, to show how close he was he wanted my wife to pay an additional $3.00 for water tax upon the homestead.'

. Rebello Page 25.

If Andrew was prepared to do that to relatives I don't think there was much chance of him shedding the milk of human kindness on any of his tenants!