Lizzie Borden Society Forum

It is really interesting to think about Emma and presumably John, perhaps even Alice or others having come to the conclusion that the police suspected Lizzie and decided not to tell her. If they were trying to protect her, warning her seems like the way to go. So, protecting her by keeping from her...why?

We may have some evidence by the way she acted when she did find out. Rashly, defiantly. Put out the hands for the cuffs and say I'm ready to go right now.

I don't think it was their own personal suspicion of Lizzie that would cause Emma to word it that way. I think it was something about the nature of the questions the police had asked them about Lizzie that let the others know that she was a genuine suspect.

If I were to pick one person who would be able to read all of Lizzie's micro-expressions and other involuntary and fleeting body language tells, it would be Emma. If Hiram's quotes from the newspaper are accurate, Lizzie wasn't able to tell a convincing account of the morning to him. I think that since the Inquest was also a complete mess, that Lizzie probably didn't do a perfect job telling Emma and Uncle John about the events of the morning.

Yes, this is speculation, but consider the simple things Emma would know from experience of living with Lizzie:

1. Emma would know how many flats would heat up on the stove and how if one was hot enough, perhaps 3 others were also hot enough.

2. Emma would know if Lizzie could easily stoke the kitchen fire.

3. Emma would know if Lizzie would really root around the barn loft for a few pennies worth of lead to make sinkers (she would have to melt and pour molten lead into molds or use hand tools to get them the proper weight and shape to stay attached to a line and work effectively as sinkers - or she could spend a few cents and have a box full of perfect sinkers.

4. Emma would know if the screen was broken and if it was in Lizzie's personality to fix it herself or just tell father, a carpenter, and he would fix it.

5. Emma knew whether the dress peg story was a lie.

6. Emma knew whether burning the dress was her own idea.

I think Emma had enough information about whether or not Lizzie was guilty before the inquest started, but whether she let herself think through the implications of what she knew is another matter.

I think by the time Lizzie burned the dress Emma had enough information to know beyond a reasonable doubt if Lizzie were guilty.

My guesses on the evolution of suspicion of the others:

Bridget: didn't suspect Lizzie until she asked about going to Mrs. Whitehead's house and I think it was only upon reflection that her suspicion would grow. I think in the immediate aftermath she didn't suspect Lizzie.

Hiram Harrington: I only have the newspaper to go on, based on that I think he thought she was guilty. However, the way he testified, I think he did not want to say anything that would put the rope around Lizzie's neck. I wonder if discussing things with his wife (Andrew's sister) softened his position about Lizzie or if the newspapers lied. It doesn't appear that he made an effort to correct the record or make the newspaper retract the story. Does anyone have information that he did? That would change things substantially.

Uncle John: I don't think he knew Lizzie well enough to know, like Emma would. I think he was just trying to protect what was left of the family and then move on with his life.

Alice Russell: I don't think she suspected Lizzie until the dress burning, then I think at some point (pure speculation) she may have talked to some of the Marion girls and they had collectively come to the conclusion Lizzie was probably guilty. I wish we knew what was in that Marion letter.

Many more than one newspaper reported Hiram's interview in which he described his conversations with and view of Lizzie. He also provided an almost identical statement to the police. It is very possible the police were present for the same 'speech' Harrington gave to reporters about his chat with Lizzie.

That he said those things is as close to unimpeachable as we can measure something that occurred in 1892.

Regarding Alice.....have you read the Charles Well's diary entries about Alice and Elizabeth? I think I've posted it a couple times, but will send to you if you don't have it. What people put in personal diaries (never intended to be read by others) reflects what they truly believe and feel, so I find them very compelling insights.

Has anyone ever sat down and came up with a scenario that would make sense that Lizzie was innocent? Disregarding her contradictions, the best I can come up with is that someone snuck in just after Bridget went out to wash windows, crept upstairs to guest room (Lizzie would have to be in her room-door shut), then after dispatching Abby, hide until Bridget went to her room to lie down. Of course Lizzie would have to of told the truth about going to the barn.
The odds against are almost incalculable, but still possible.
Pearson mentioned that the Grand Jury, 21 were present for the vote, and all but one voted guilty.

Perhaps looking at ways for Lizzie to be innocent could help uncover a clue.

I haven't read the witness statements in the entitreity yet and didn't know about Hiram's statement to the police. That seems very solid.

I don't remember reading the Charles Well's diary entries - please post again when you have time. Thanks!

What does everyone think about why Emma and the others decided not to tell Lizzie she was a suspect? I'm not sure my interpretation would be shared by everyone and I'm interested in what all of you think.

Inspector, the short answer is no. I don't want to give you my 20+ reasons in this thread, but if you want to start a Speculation: Lizzie 100% Innocent thread, we can have a lot of fun throwing ideas around.

The time span between Emma's return to the house on the 4th and her statement on the 6th is really not all that expansive. For the duration of the 4th and probably a chunk of the 5th, Emma and John were still getting their bearings straight on the new reality. John was out getting clothes buried and being followed by the police. Emma was probably meeting family, the police and planning the funeral for the next morning. I'm sure discussions with Lizzie about what she 'experienced' or remembered happened.

Saturday pre-noon was the funeral and extensive police search. And then Hilliard & Coughlin showed up late Saturday and the discussion and statements you mention are shared.

I don't find it troubling or peculiar that Emma, in the first 48 hours after the murders, didn't take the time, and mostly the emotional effort, to ask Lizzie if she realized that it seemed the newspapers were speculating on her guilt. It wasn't like there was an official declaration of Lizzie's suspect status from law enforcement until that same Saturday evening.

I suppose I have a different take on Emma’s comment that they had tried to keep it from Lizzie. Even with all the going’s on, there must have been some serious eye to eye interaction in a secluded room between the sisters.
My feeling is that all in the house could clearly see where the evidence pointed and probably were concerned.
However, Lizzie, wheather innocently or purposefully wasn’t exhibiting the same or correct behavior under obvious circumstances.
This IMO explains why they were trying to keep it from Lizzie.
Lizzie may have acted obliviously to what the others could see, and it might have been when they all decided to keep it from her.
Just speculating on the mood, and what Emma’s words tell us about Lizzie’s state of mind.
Hmm…Did Lizzie act like a child who didn’t understand or have a care about the predicament?
Also, it appears that Alice took more of a motherly role than Emma, starting Thursday afternoon .
As always, I feel if there are any clues, it would be closest to those in the house, factual testimony, and possibly something so obvious it has been overlooked.
To me Emma’s words are almost as important as Bridget and Lizzie’s because she knew Lizzie and carried her DNA.
Unfortunately Emma was selective with her words, but we do have quite a bit from her.

Cam, you have a good point about the short time between the Mayors visit,
I’m just thinking there has to be a reason for the group Emma is speaking of, and their covert protection of Lizzie.

I edited this and I'm treating it as a copper mine from which we can all throw in our two cents. It's not perfect, but I think it's got enough of a useful framework for what we need to try to see what would need to be true for Lizzie to be innocent and see where suspicion evolves as each coincidence and implausibility adds up and combines.

Contradict these at will and we can filter down to the truly useful items.

We can create seven major conjunctions of evidence when examining the evidence against Lizzie. The first three are structural: any innocence theory must solve them. The remaining four try to explain why Lizzie herself appeared incriminating despite being innocent.

A fully innocent Lizzie requires three large things to be true simultaneously:

An extraordinarily capable or fortunate outsider successfully committed two close-range murders inside an occupied house.

Lizzie was extraordinarily unfortunate, repeatedly saying and doing innocent things that looked exactly like alibi construction, misdirection and evidence destruction.

The outsider’s movements and Lizzie’s movements aligned perfectly, although neither supposedly knew what the other was doing.

1. The Intruder Access Conjunction
An outsider must have:
• Entered the house without being seen.
• Reached the guest room without alerting Abby, Bridget or Lizzie, assuming the killer entered the house after Andrew and John were already out of the house.
• Approached within arm’s reach of Abby without provoking an effective scream or struggle.
• Known, discovered or correctly guessed that the sewing/guest room would remain unused.
• Avoided detection while moving through a small, occupied house.

This is already more demanding than merely showing that a door might briefly have been unlocked. The theory must explain entry, movement, approach and non-detection together.

The absence of an effective alarm particularly suggests that Abby either knew the person, regarded the person as harmless, or was taken almost instantly by surprise. The wound evidence was consistent with an initial standing confrontation followed by most blows being delivered after she was prone.

2. The Two Separate Murders Timing Conjunction
After killing Abby, the murderer must then have:
• Chosen not to flee permanently.
• Remained concealed or left and returned.
• Tolerated an uncertain wait of roughly an hour.
• Avoided Bridget's observation.
• Avoided Lizzie's observation.
• Avoided the possibility that John Morse might return.
• Detected Andrew’s arrival.
• Waited until Andrew was vulnerable.
• Acted during the short interval when Bridget was upstairs and Lizzie claimed to be in the barn.

This is probably the hardest single conjunction in the innocence model.

A random intruder might kill and escape. A person waiting to kill Andrew might only attack Andrew. What is difficult to explain is an outsider killing

Abby, remaining committed to the premises despite extreme exposure, and then successfully obtaining a second opportunity whose timing was not fully predictable.

3. The Escape-Weapon-Blood Conjunction
The murderer must then have:
• Killed Andrew.
• Avoided being seen by Lizzie.
• Left without Bridget hearing or seeing anything suspicious.
• Carried or concealed the hatchet.
• Cleaned up enough to be potentially seen on the street.
• Escaped through a relatively busy urban neighborhood without attracting notice.

This requires not only an unseen killer, but an unseen post-attack killer potentially carrying the physical evidence of two hatchet murders.

4. The Barn Alibi Conjunction
For Lizzie to be entirely innocent, the essential barn account must be substantially genuine:
• She really left Andrew alive.
• She really entered the barn.
• She remained away long enough for the murder and escape.
• The murderer entered or emerged only after she wasn't in a position to be a witness.
• She saw and heard nothing useful.
• The lead, sinkers, pears, screen and stove explanations were genuine activities, intentions or confused recollections.
• The dust observations failed to record her movements accurately.

This is not just a question of whether she could physically have visited the barn. The visit must coincide almost perfectly with the murderer’s opportunity.

The murderer and Lizzie must therefore have moved according to complementary schedules without Lizzie seeing the killer:
Lizzie leaves → murderer approaches Andrew → murder occurs → murderer cleans or composes himself → murderer escapes → Lizzie returns.
That sequence is possible, but it requires unusually precise luck unless the killer was observing her movements.

5. The Controlling the Narrative Conjunction
Several statements that looked like attempts to control the narrative must all have innocent explanations:
• Abby really received a note, or Lizzie sincerely misunderstood something Abby said.
• Lizzie genuinely believed Abby had gone out.
• She genuinely thought she heard Abby return.
• She innocently discouraged Bridget from going to Mrs. Whitehead’s.
• Her reference to the cheap cloth sale was ordinary conversation.
• Asking whether Bridget intended to go out was not an attempt to clear the house.

Her statements about locked rooms were expressions of privacy or security, not efforts to restrict the search.

Her external-threat narrative to Alice reflected genuine anxiety, not pre-emptive misdirection.

The note is especially important because it simultaneously explains Abby’s disappearance and discourages inquiry into where she actually was. No note was found, no writer was identified and no sick person came forward, despite the small number of people who would have plausibly sent Abby a note.

For innocence, that entire evidentiary effect must be accidental.

6. The Clothing Destruction Conjunction
Lizzie’s clothing history must also be entirely innocent:
• The clothing submitted to police was genuinely what she wore.
• Witnesses describing another dress were mistaken or confused.
• The dress burning after police suspicion became explicit was entirely innocent.
• Emma genuinely suggested burning it.
• The police either overlooked the dress during their search or saw it without appreciating its significance.

The individual proposition “she burned an old paint-stained dress” is not inherently implausible. The difficult conjunction is:
Police search for bloody clothing → Lizzie learns she is suspected → a potentially relevant dress is destroyed → Alice warns that it was the worst possible act → Emma later supplies an earlier innocent reason for the destruction.

All of that must have occurred without evidence destruction or later narrative repair.

Emma testified that she had told Lizzie to destroy the dress Saturday night; Alice’s account made Emma’s Sunday reaction sound more spontaneous and uninformed.

7. The Cumulative Coincidence Conjunction
Finally, all the following must independently be innocent:
• The prussic-acid identification was mistaken or unrelated.
• The family illness was unrelated.
• The ominous conversation with Alice the previous evening was genuine anxiety.
• The angry stranger and external-enemy material were genuine.
• Lizzie’s conflicting accounts resulted from shock, paraphrase and memory problems.
• Hiram misread her conduct and character.
• Her unusual calmness was simply her crisis response.
• The very clean hands, face, hair, and clothing after the barn excursion was innocent.
• The dress burning was innocent.
• The missing note was innocent.
• The barn timing was innocent.
• The killer’s successful entry, concealment, timing and escape were all independent of her.

This is where the innocence hypothesis becomes weakest. None of these facts alone proves guilt. The problem is their joint occurrence.

1. The concealed-waiting murderer
The killer must remain available between the deaths despite unpredictable movements inside the house. This is the central logistical problem.

2. The barn-window coincidence
Lizzie must leave at exactly the interval needed for the second murder.

3. Silent access to Abby
The killer must approach Abby closely in a confined room without an effective alarm, suggesting familiarity or an extremely successful surprise attack.

4. Bloody escape without observation
The killer must exit with weapon and probable contamination through a heavily occupied and observed area.

5. The nonexistent or misunderstood note
Lizzie’s explanation for Abby’s absence must be sincere despite the absence of corroboration and its powerful usefulness to the murderer.

6. Innocent dress destruction
The timing, police search, Alice’s concern and Emma’s later explanation must all be unrelated to concealing evidence.

7. Innocent narrative management
The locked rooms, external enemies, prior robbery, screen, sinkers and exclusions of other people must represent naïve or anxious storytelling rather than deliberate direction of the investigation.

8. Innocent cumulative contradictions
The discrepancies must arise from shock, reporting imperfections and ordinary memory rather than adaptive changes to an invented account.

Great write up Lorcan.
It glares as to why I stated “disregarding Lizzie’s contradictions” and I presented a simple way for an intruder to do the crimes.
You’ve presented the obstacles I wanted to ignore…lol
It is of course essential that we consider them if we are seriously debating her innocence.
One of the biggest problems we have is known facts that are possibly not true. We rely on testimony and we all draw the line hopefully close to the same spot, but not the same.

One thought I had in the intruder theory, was that Andrew , and Bridget were creatures of habit.
Andrew took his morning walk, and Bridget would be outside away from the side door, on a regular basis, possibly not always the same day, but still predictable.
Entering the house would be a simple matter.
Then the problems get tougher.

I took the liberty to move the last two posts to a separate thread titled "Proving Lizzie's Innocence"....or thereabouts.