Is it possible that Lizzie invented the note story?

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:04 pm

(I think this is a very important issue, so I post it as a new topic.)

The note story always troubles me. Now I would like to consider it in another way.

Let me begin by accepting the conjecture that Lizzie was the killer and she invented the note story in order to prevent her father and Bridget from looking for Abby (who had been killed), only in this way she could be sure to have the opportunity to kill Andrew afterwards.

Ok. I can agree that Lizzie could have invented such a lie to tell to her father, but why did she let Bridget hear, intentionally, the note story as well? She didn’t want to kill Bridget and Bridget wasn’t killed, so Lizzie knew well that one day Bridget would testify that she (Lizzie) mentioned to her father a note that didn’t exist. Since she knew well that on the floor of the guest room was lying the body of Abby, so when her father returned, Lizzie would pay a great attention upon what her father did. When she saw her father go upstairs, she would immediately go upstairs and tell her father the note, on the second floor, without letting Bridget hear nothing. Meanwhile, Lizzie would pay a great attention as well upon Bridget’s movements. When she saw Bridget finish washing the windows, she would approach her and say: “Maggie, have you finished? you are so tired, go to your room and have a rest.” Bridget: “Where is Mrs. Borden? I would like to ask her, for the dinner, what do I…” Lizzie: “I don’t know where she is indeed. But don’t worry, I will call you when she need you.” I think in this way Lizzie could easily persuade Bridget to return to her room.

The role of the note was only to prevent Andrew from looking for Abby. Since Andrew was killed, Bridget didn’t hear what Lizzie said to her father, no one would know the note story (- it was a lie -). On August 4th, after Lizzie “discovered” her father’s body, to Alice, to Mrs. Churchill, to anyone else, and afterwards to Knowlton, Lizzie would never mention the note story, because she knew well that the note didn’t exist, no one would say: “I was the writer (messenger) of the note.” So, no one knew the note lie, the note lie couldn’t create any trouble to Lizzie.

But what actually occurred is that, (if Lizzie were the killer and invented the note story), knowing very well that there was neither the note, nor the writer (or messenger) of the note, Lizzie let Bridget hear the note story, (Bridget whom she didn’t want to kill), and then, she told to Alice, to Mrs. Churchill, to everyone, that Abby received a note. When questioned by Knowlton, Lizzie even confirmed several times the same thing, meanwhile she knew perfectly that such a note would never be found to support her words! No one, as the writer or the messenger of the note, would come up to confirm her words! I wonder, I wonder, why? Why Lizzie, instead of trying to cover her lie, wanted everyone know that Abby received a note that didn’t exist? By doing so Lizzie was really creating a big problem for herself, wasn’t she?

Now let’s consider another conjecture: 1) Lizzie wasn’t the killer; 2) Abby really told her that she received a note (It was possible that Abby was lying, it was possible as well that Abby did receive a note); 3) Lizzie told Andrew the note story more slowly than usually, because Andrew, a 70-year-old man, didn't feel well that morning; 4) On August 4th Lizzie told everyone that Abby received a note because Abby told her so; 5) When questioned by Knowlton afterwards, even though at that moment no such a note was found, and no one said that he / she was the writer (messenger) of the note, Lizzie confirmed still, several times, that Abby received a note, because Lizzie was convinced that this was true, because she heard with her own ears that Abby actually told her such a note.

Let’s compare these two conjectures. And I would like to ask every member of the forum: in your opinion, which conjecture could be the more probable one?

My choice will be, definitely, the second: Lizzie was innocent, she said always that Abby received a note, because Abby actually told her so.

(I hope that I explained well what I want to say.)

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:13 pm

Bridget testified that Lizzie told Andrew about the note and spoke very slowly while doing so. There is nothing suggesting it was done intentionally so that Bridget could overhear it. Lizzie also told Bridget that Abby had gone out as Bridget went to her room. Lizzie told others about the note the day of the murders, but that seems to end Lizzie's obsession with the note story. By the following week, it became quite the opposite.
Lizzie had several opportunities to answer Knowlton at the Inquest with the note story. Knowlton had been trying to get Lizzie to express why she hadn't missed Abby that morning in testimony previous to this, so there were actually several more opportunities for her to respond that she hadn't missed Abby because she thought Abby had responded to a note and had gone out.

Lizzie's Inquest Testimony, pp.64-65:
Q. I ask again, perhaps you have answered all you care to, what explanation can you give, can
you suggest, as to what she was doing from the time she said she had got the work all done in
the spare room until 11 o'clock?
A. I suppose she went up and made her own bed.
Q. That would be in the back part?
A. Yes sir.
Q. She would have to go by you twice to do that?
A. Unless she went when I was in my room that few minutes.
Q. That would not be time enough for her to go and make her own bed and come back again?
A. Sometimes she stayed up longer and sometimes shorter; I don't know.
Q. Otherwise than that, she would have to go in your sight?
A. I should have to have seen her once; I don't know that I need to have seen her more than once.
Q. You did not see her at all?
A. No sir, not after the dining room.
Q. What explanation can you suggest as to the whereabouts of your mother from the time you
saw her in the dining room, and she said her work in the spare room was all done, until 11
o'clock?
A. I don't know. I think she went back into the spare room, and whether she came back again or
not I don't know; that has always been a mystery.
Q. Can you think of anything she could be doing in the spare room?
A. Yes sir. I know what she used to do sometimes. She kept her best cape she wore on the street
in there, and she used occasionally to go up there to get it and to take it into her room. She kept
a great deal in the guest room drawers; she used to go up there and get things and put things;
she used those drawers for her own use.
Q. That connects her with her own room again, to reach which she had to go down stairs and
come up again?
A. Yes.
Q. Assuming that she did not go into her own room, I understand you to say she could not have
gone to her own room without your seeing her?
A. She could while I was down cellar.
Q. You went down immediately you came down, within a few minutes, and you did not see her
when you came back?
A. No sir.
Q. After that time she must have remained in the guest chamber?
A. I don't know.
Q. So far as you can judge?
A. So far as I can judge she might have been out of the house, or in the house.
Q. Had you any knowledge of her going out of the house?
A. No sir.
Q. Had you any knowledge of her going out of the house?
A. She told me she had had a note, somebody was sick, and said "I am going to get the dinner on
the way," and asked me what I wanted for dinner.

Only after having been directly prompted twice about Abby leaving the house does Lizzie finally remember the note.

No one ever came forward as the author of the note or the messenger. Abby never left the house or changed her clothing to go calling. The only person promoting a note story was Lizzie, and she couldn't even remember it four or five days later!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:28 pm

Sorry, double post!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:04 am

I think the note lie was a spur of the moment explanation as to why Mrs. Borden wasn't around. I don't think there was any forethought as to what if Maggie overheard the explanation, and if she did- it would just be Lizzie's word against Maggie's... after all she was all over the property doing windows and could easily miss someone bringing a note. The future ramification of everyone discovering no note nor sender nor messenger wasn't thought through at the moment. AND no note, nor sender, nor messenger were EVER found. Spur-of-the-moment lies are never thought out well, which is why more lies must be told to explain the first one.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:38 am

The note story prevented Andrew from searching the house and finding Abby, I agree. It sounds like a lie because if the note story was the truth and Lizzie was innocent, it would have been the first thing she thought of when questioned about Abby's whereabouts. It would have been on the tip of her tongue because it would have been the only explanation she had for the question, rather than the disconnected alternatives she came up with at the inquest. It certainly should not have to be recalled after only four or five days if it figured prominently in the case, and especially if she couldn't shut up about it the day of the murders.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:53 am

I agree. It's always been my theory that Lizzie used that note as a way to keep Andrew and Bridget from searching for Abby. It also, in my opinion, shows a bit of premeditation in Andrew's murder. She wanted to keep the alarm from being raised that Abby was dead. If Abby was the only target why would she do that? Bridget had already been outside washing windows. It could have been said someone got in the house and killed Abby if Lizzie wanted to stop at just killing her. It was implied at the trial by the defense that someone got in while Bridget was out washing windows. I think Lizzie planned to kill both of them. I believe she knew Andrew would figure out who killed Abby if she left him alive, and she wanted them both dead for the money. She could have come up with a better alibi than she did for the murders this is true. But I happen to think she came up with the best possible alibi she could. Because in order to murder both of them there was no way around being in the house all morning. She could not say she had been out in town doing anything or seeing anybody because there would be no witnesses to that. Shop keepers could be asked if they had seen her, friends could be asked if she had been there to visit, and witnesses out on the street that day could have been asked if they had seen her out walking ...etc. Nobody would have come forward because there was no one to see her. She could not leave the house before Andrew got home to establish some sort of alibi because if Andrew or Bridget searched for Abby while she was gone the jig was already up. If Andrew was also an intended target that is. If Andrew was not a target Lizzie had no reason not to leave the house after Abby was dead and let her body be found.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:24 am

1. Yes, Yooper, that morning Lizzie also told Bridget, explicitly, that Abby had received a note and had gone out. (So Lizzie’s intention of slowly speaking to her father (etc.) is only a speculation, her behaviour seemed for me still less suspicious. Very good!) Indeed I have already read all testimony documents, but being a newcomer to the case, it could occur that I am not able to recall all the details. Thank you, Yooper.

2. Yes, on August 4th, before the discovery of Abby’s body, Lizzie told everyone about the note. But if she was the murderess and author of the note lie, why did she let everyone know this lie? All the persons who heard Lizzie’s note story would testify one day against her, so why did Lizzie inform all these people? Only for drawing suspicion onto her? If she wanted to prevent her father from searching Abby, why didn’t Lizzie act in another way, using always the note lie, in another way so that no one would know her lie, for example as I suggested in my original post?

3. Now let’s consider the extract of Lizzie’s testimony quoted by you. If I understand well (correct me please if I am wrong), with that quotation, you would like to say: look, Franz, Lizzie, at that moment, was trying to avoid facing the note story, she didn’t want to mention it, she wanted to cover the note story. But, Lizzie, having told everyone the note story on August 4th, when questioned by Knowlton, should know very well that it was already too late to cover it, shouldn’t she?

Yes, Yooper, I always say there are a number of circumstantial evidence against Lizzie, the note story could be considered such an evidence. Lizzie could be guilty, and invented the note story, and for this reason, she reacted in this apparently suspicious manner in front of Knowlton. But could we find another explanation?

I think we all agree that, all those people who knew the note story in the Borden house on August 4th were all embarrassed, confused, disoriented afterwards by the fact that Abby’s body was found in the house and in such a condition (with her home clothes on her), - obviously she never left the house. And afterwards, they would be more embarrassed, confused, disoriented by another fact that no such a note was never found, and “no one ever came forward as the author of the note or the messenger”. And up to now, in all these 120 years, of all generations, whoever interested in the Borden case was, and is, embarrassed, confused and disoriented by the contradiction between those facts above mentioned and the note story “promoted” only by Lizzie. Right? Ok!

Now please permit me to conjecture that Lizzie was innocent and Abby did tell her a note story. Could I? If I could, I continue.

I would like to ask every member in this forum, if Lizzie was innocent, and Abby did tell her a note story, who, in all over the world, of all time, should have been the most embarrassed, the most confused and the most disoriented person by the contradiction between those facts above mentioned and the note story, story told by Abby to Lizzie? Who should have been this person? Who? If not Lizzie herself?!

Yooper, Allen, I appreciate very much that you give a great importance to the facts. I agree with you. But meanwhile, apart the facts, I think we should consider some other things, maybe invisible, when we discuss a criminal case. Yes, now I want to consider the psychological status of Lizzie at that period (if she was innocent). I have no proof regarding Lizzie’s psychological status, no one has such a proof, except Lizzie herself. But could I do some reasonable deduction? If I could, I continue.

Yes, if Lizzie was innocent, in my opinion (I think in the opinion of many), Lizzie herself should have been the most embarrassed, the most confused and the most disoriented person by the contradiction between those facts above mentioned and the note story told her by Abby. It should not be difficult to imagine Lizzie’s psychological reactions: “Oh, my God, what happened? Abby told me she had received a note and I believed she had gone out, but why was she killed in the house? Why in such a condition? With her home clothes on her? …Oh why no such a note was found up to now? Why no one said he / she was the writer or messenger of the note? Oh my God, was I dreaming while Abby was speaking to me? Did I have a hallucination? I just can’t understand what really happened, I don’t understand nothing. Oh my God, help me. What really happened?...”

Now let’s return to the extract of Lizzie’s testimony. I don’t want to talk about here the morphine effect, I don’t want to talk about the rudeness of Knowlton, nor the pressure of being suspected upon Lizzie’s head. With all those embarrassment, confusion and disorientation caused by the note story (and by many other things Lizzie couldn't understand well), was it so suspicious the apparent reluctance and hesitation of Lizzie in front of Knowlton when the latter approached at the very first moment the note story issue? Yooper, are you really so sure that her hesitation means that Lizzie invented the note story, and therefore she was guilty? You have all your rights to think so, but in my opinion, if Lizzie was innocent, her hesitation considered above could be perfectly caused by the confusion, the disorientation Lizzie suffered so much at that moment. Her hesitation didn’t mean she wanted to cover the note story already impossible to cover; the real reason could be that she just didn’t know how to approach the issue because she could doubt for a moment if Abby really told her the note story. If I understand well that passage of her testimony, Lizzie overcome quickly her hesitation, and then, not only she confirmed several times the note story, but also, she told a number of details of what Abby told her during their last conversation!

I would like to ask every member of the forum: if we were in the tribunal now, if I were defending Lizzie, after having read my pleading, so badly written in a so bad English, and written by a common language teacher who is almost totally ignorant about law and court matters like me (an experienced lawyer could present the same pleading 100 times more brilliantly than me), could you be so sure, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Lizzie invented the note story, and therefore, she was the killer of Abby and Andrew? Could you be so sure? What will your verdict be? Tell me, please! Tell to Lizzie please!

(P.S.: 1. I am becoming more and more convinced for Lizzie’s innocence, and I would not be surprised that one day I become absolutely so.

2. Lizzie’s testimony, in my opinion, could be an excellent material for psychological linguistic study. Certainly, I am undoubtedly the least competent member of the forum for such a study, having Chinese, not English, as my native language, and being French-speaking, not English-speaking, by education.

3. If Lizzie was innocent and if Abby actually told her a note story, why was Abby killed in the house with her home clothes on her? For my conjecture please read my topic entitled: “My theory: uncle John was guilty”.)

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:14 pm

Yes, I agree there's a lot of circumstantial evidence against Lizzie, but all I've seen in her favor is fantasies and fairy tales. Nothing substantiated in fact, nothing arrived at deductively. Some of us supply facts while others attempt to refute them with fantasy. It is rapidly becoming tiresome.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:59 pm

Any theory not based somehow in fact holds as much weight for me as the theories of the supposed psychics who have visions of who done it. We could just as well believe Amy Allan from Dead Files who claimed that the Borden sisters were not only molested by Andrew but had sexual relations with each other. Supposition without facts opens the door to the perpetuation of myths surrounding the case.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:44 pm

Hey yooper and Allen,

You can certainly continue with your own theories. I am not here for convincing anyone. I am here for learning and exchanging my ideas with all the members of the forum. I will continue to do so.

Thank you very much for your replies.

hyacinth · Post by **hyacinth** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:07 pm

Hey Franz , have you seen this site ?
http://www.thelizziebordencollection.co ... istory.php

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:22 pm

Hey hyacinth, vey happy to meet you here.

Yes, I know that site, and download a number of material. Would you like to mention me something special of that site by giving me this information?

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Franz wrote:Hey yooper and Allen,

You can certainly continue with your own theories. I am not here for convincing anyone. I am here for learning and exchanging my ideas with all the members of the forum. I will continue to do so.

Thank you very much for your replies.

With all due respect Franz, you are not learning anything because you are not using common sense and not listening to the known facts about the case. I am certainly not an expert on the Lizzie Borden case, but I have learned alot by other members who are more knowledgeable than me. Try to "Listen" more.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:56 pm

Smudgeman wrote:
With all due respect Franz, you are not learning anything because you are not using common sense and not listening to the known facts about the case. I am certainly not an expert on the Lizzie Borden case, but I have learned alot by other members who are more knowledgeable than me. Try to "Listen" more.

Smudgeman, I quote here a little part of my tread as an example:

if Lizzie was innocent, in my opinion (I think in the opinion of many), Lizzie herself should have been the most embarrassed, the most confused and the most disoriented person by the contradiction between those facts above mentioned and the note story told her by Abby.

Please tell me, in this paragraph, if I didn't use the "common sense", which kind of uncommon sense did I use?

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:47 pm

Yooper wrote: Some of us supply facts while others attempt to refute them with fantasy.

Yooper, would you like to tell me what facts supplied by you I attempt to refute with fantasy? As far as I understand, that Lizzie was guilty is not a fact, but only a theory. What I have been attempting to refute is only this theory (which is not a fact). Some facts are considered generally as circumstantial evidence against Lizzie, and what I have been doing is to try to explain these facts in a diffrent way and to try to demonstrate that these facts could be not circumstantial evidence (for example, the note story). As far as I know, I never refuted a fact in itelf. If I did do such a thing (to refute a fact), could you be kind enough to tell me what facts are concerned?

(P. S.: For example, the note story: I accept all the known facts: 1) Lizzie, before the discovery of Abby's body, told everyone, Bridget included, that Abby told her she had received a note, etc.; 2. Abby was killed in the house with home clothes; 3) No note was neve found; 4) No one said he / she was the author or messenger of the note; 5) Lizzie, questioned by Knowlton, demonstrated at the very first moment some hesitation about the note story issue; 6) Lizzie, afterwards, confirmed several times the note story to Knowlton, offering more other details of her conversation with Abby, etc. All these facts, I didn't refute none of them, I only tried to explain them in a different way, and concluded that the note story could be not a circumstantial evidence against Lizzie.)

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:40 am

If the note story was the truth, then why not tell everyone about it? If the note story was the truth, then why not tell Knowlton about it along with everyone else? Embarrassment, confusion, and disorientation are not valid reasons for an innocent person to forget the truth, they are only excuses for Lizzie's behavior.

The reason Lizzie had to tell everyone the note story was because they were all asking about Abby. They were, in effect, asking her point blank; Why are you not concerned about Abby? She needed an excuse for her apparent lack of concern, and the note story covered it at that moment. The note story was forgotten by the time of the inquest. It's a hell of a lot easier to forget a lie than to forget the truth.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 9:41 am

I'm going to say this again.
Fact: NO note, NO messenger, NO sick friend ever came forward. This does not prove guilt, but is important.
Fact: Lizzie's saying there was a note and that Mrs. Borden went out was helpful in pushing off a search for her.
Fact: If it were a lie, it was not a good lie (it could be proven/disproven) which tells me it wasn't thought out or planned.
Fact: Logic states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:00 pm

I would like to make a résumé of my main ideas expressed in the forum up to now. These ideas are all my personal interpretations of some facts, and are all in favour of Lizzie’s innocence.

1. Lizzie lied in her alibi testimony. This is a fact. I accepted it, I didn’t refute it. With my own conjecture I tried to demonstrate that this fact could be not a circumstantial evidence against Lizzie.

2. When Bridget and Mrs. Churchill went upstairs to search Abby, the guest room door was open. We are almost sure that this is a fact (cf. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill’s testimonies). I accepted it, I didn’t refute it. I think that this fact could demonstrate Lizzie’s innocence.

3. After the discovery of Andrew’s body, Lizzie didn’t rush out of the house immediately; she didn’t call the police immediately; she was judged by many too calm, too self-controlled in that fatal morning. These are all facts. I accepted them, I didn’t refute them. With my own interpretation I tried to demonstrate that these facts could be not circumstantial evidence against Lizzie.

4. The note was never found, no one testified that he/she was the author ore messenger of the note. This is a fact. I accepted it, I didn’t refute it. With my own analyse in this post I tried to demonstrate that this fact could be not a circumstantial evidence against Lizzie.

I will continue to do so: to accept the facts, and to interpret them in my own way. I won’t be intimated, never, by the fact that the majority of the people think Lizzie was guilty. I will always think with my own brain. Certainly, I could be wrong. That’s why your criticism is and will be always so precious for me.

I would like to add another word: yes, I am more convinced for Lizzie’s innocence, but if one day, someone successfully convinces me that Lizzie was guilty, I, Franz, I would have plenty of courage to change my mind.

I hope I could be understood.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:20 pm

Yooper wrote:If the note story was the truth, then why not tell everyone about it? If the note story was the truth, then why not tell Knowlton about it along with everyone else? Embarrassment, confusion, and disorientation are not valid reasons for an innocent person to forget the truth, they are only excuses for Lizzie's behavior.

The reason Lizzie had to tell everyone the note story was because they were all asking about Abby. They were, in effect, asking her point blank; Why are you not concerned about Abby? She needed an excuse for her apparent lack of concern, and the note story covered it at that moment. The note story was forgotten by the time of the inquest. It's a hell of a lot easier to forget a lie than to forget the truth.

1. Before the discovery of Abby’s body, Lizzie did tell the note story to whoever asked her about Abby.

2. For her hesitation at the very first time questioned by Knowlton about the issue I have expressed my own interpretation.

3. You said: “Embarrassment, confusion, and disorientation are not valid reasons”. This is only your personal opinion, not a fact.

4. Why was Lizzie not concerned about Abby before the latter’s body was found? My answer is: if Lizzie was innocent and if Abby did tell her a note, she could have thought that Abby had gone out. Certainly, this is my personal opinion, not a fact. You think Lizzie was guilty, and you said: “She needed an excuse for her apparent lack of concern, and the note story covered it at that moment”. This is only your personal opinion, not a fact, as well.

You didn't answer me what facts, as you said, I tried to refute in my posts.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:32 pm

PossumPie wrote: Fact: Logic states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

No blood was found on Lizzie's body nor on her clothes. And if I understand well, it is generally thought that the span of time between Andrew's death and Lizzie's calling to Bridget was very very small. Please tell, what is your simplest explanation about these facts?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:40 pm

The simplest explanation of the facts for me is she was smart enough that she covered herself with something. Andrew's coat was found underneath his head. She could have worn that coat backwards, and afterwards tucked it up under his head. The blood being on the coat was of course thought to be only natural because his head was resting on it. And I believe most of the blood splatter was directed away from her in the first place so there was little clean up to be done. I don't believe the killer was that blood splattered due to the lack of blood found through out the rest of house. Which I think points towards someone who could clean themselves up afterward. Like Lizzie. If a blood covered killer was hiding out for over an hour, how did he not leave any blood behind? Why was there no trail? No bloody transfer? Nothing? If the killer was that covered in gore, and was not Lizzie, how would they make it down the street unnoticed? Either scenario the killer could not have been covered in bloody gore. It's my opinion there was relatively little clean up on Lizzie's person, and she had plenty of time to get rid of the evidence with a tuck of the coat under Andrew's head.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:44 pm

I think the lack of blood points to the fact that there was relatively little blood spatter, and the killer could clean themselves up quickly. People who like to point out that Lizzie had no blood on her clothing or her hair, so she could not have done the murders, do not seem to realize that a blood covered person walking down Second street unnoticed is just as unlikely.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:27 pm

Franz wrote:
Yooper wrote:If the note story was the truth, then why not tell everyone about it? If the note story was the truth, then why not tell Knowlton about it along with everyone else? Embarrassment, confusion, and disorientation are not valid reasons for an innocent person to forget the truth, they are only excuses for Lizzie's behavior.

The reason Lizzie had to tell everyone the note story was because they were all asking about Abby. They were, in effect, asking her point blank; Why are you not concerned about Abby? She needed an excuse for her apparent lack of concern, and the note story covered it at that moment. The note story was forgotten by the time of the inquest. It's a hell of a lot easier to forget a lie than to forget the truth.
1. Before the discovery of Abby’s body, Lizzie did tell the note story to whoever asked her about Abby.

2. For her hesitation at the very first time questioned by Knowlton about the issue I have expressed my own interpretation.

3. You said: “Embarrassment, confusion, and disorientation are not valid reasons”. This is only your personal opinion, not a fact.

4. Why was Lizzie not concerned about Abby before the latter’s body was found? My answer is: if Lizzie was innocent and if Abby did tell her a note, she could have thought that Abby had gone out. Certainly, this is my personal opinion, not a fact. You think Lizzie was guilty, and you said: “She needed an excuse for her apparent lack of concern, and the note story covered it at that moment”. This is only your personal opinion, not a fact, as well.

You didn't answer me what facts, as you said, I tried to refute in my posts.

1. Yes, she did.

2. Lizzie had a half dozen or so opportunities where the note story was the simplest, most concise response to Knowlton's question prior to her eventual answer, beginning at the end of page 62. It was not the "very first time" she was asked. Since (1) is true, why did it not occur to her until she was very pointedly asked the same question, word for word, twice in a row? Because she was "embarrassed"?

3. How would being "embarrassed, confused, or disoriented" affect the truth from a truthful, innocent person? Why would Lizzie be more confused, etc. at the inquiry than she was right after the murders? She was able to tell the note story to any and all who inquired about Abby at that time. Your conjecture makes no sense at all. First, we don't know that she was in fact "embarrassed, confused, and disoriented" either singularly or collectively. Second, that condition would tend to inhibit creative lying and accentuate a reliance upon the truth since alternatives to the truth would be hard to imagine and conjure up. The fact that Lizzie comes up with myriad possibilities for Abby's whereabouts within the house tells me that she was thinking clearly enough during the questioning and was not impaired in any way.

4. Here we go again with the "you think Lizzie was guilty, therefore" foolishness. It doesn't work that way. The outcome is NOT presupposed, by definition, it is an OUTCOME. The facts speak for themselves and we are free to interpret them both ways and arrive at a probable guilt or innocence value. The fact is, Lizzie was not concerned about Abby. She didn't acknowledge Abby at all unless it was in response to another's concern for Abby.

5. If Lizzie thought Abby had gone out at the time she was answering concerned prompts by others with the note song and dance, why did she send Bridget and Mrs. Churchill to the guest room to find her? Hint: It has nothing to do with my belief of Lizzie's guilt or innocence.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:02 pm

Hey Yooper, I am not sure what would you like to say with the word "outcome". What I am sure is, that Lizzie was guilty is only a theory, nothing else but only a theory. Therefore, this theory is not a fact.

As I always said, I appreciate the difference between us. Good week-end.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:11 pm

I also do not believe there was any embarrassment about Abby being found in her house dress. She was at home. A woman would be expected to wear a house dress around the house. Especially if she were cleaning. But she would not have worn it to go out. If she had that might have caused some embarrassment. This is how it was deduced that Abby never left the house. She had not changed. Alice Russell changed her dress after Bridget came to ask her to come to the Borden's because she was going out. But I do not believe she was embarrassed to be seen in what she was wearing when Bridget got there.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:28 pm

1. Hey Allen. I never said that the lack of blood on Lizzie or on her clothes is a definite evidence to prove, definitely, her innocence. But on the other hand, I think this fact is in favour for Lizzie’s innocence.

2. You said, (if Lizzie was guilty), she could be “smart enough that she covered herself with something”, but then, you said also: “a blood covered person walking down Second street unnoticed is just as unlikely.” I think, if the killer was an intruder (we could do such a conjecture, right?), this intruder could be smart enough as well that he covered himself with something, and then put this something in, for example, a bag, and then, escaped taking the bag (in which could be hidden his weapon as well) with him, couldn’t he?

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:34 pm

I shouldn't cite this since I can't remember where I read it-- but I did read once that nervous people, who are guilty-- when questioned offer too much information.

Lizzie would have been better off to allow Abby to be found when the police searched the house.

If Lizzie did indeed believe that Abby was out but 'thought' she heard her come back in-- why didn't she also call out for her when she called out for Bridget?

And, I have said this before-- you can get A LOT done in 2-3 minutes if you have impetus to do so. I can completely unload my dishwasher or fold an entire load of clothes in the time it take microwave popcorn to pop. 2 minutes 30 seconds.

Lizzie could have cleaned herself up before calling out for Bridget IMO.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:38 pm

Allen wrote:I also do not believe there was any embarrassment about Abby being found in her house dress.

Allen, maybe I didn't explain me well in my poor English. I didn't mean that Lizzie was embarrassed by Abby's being found in her house dress. Her embarrassment derived, - (certainly, we are talking about the affair within the conjecture that Lizzie was innocent and Abby did tell her a note) - from the contradiction between Lizzie's believing that Abby should have gone out with her clothes for going out, and the fact that she was found murdered in her house dress in the guest room. Not just the house dress in itself. I hope that I am explaining well.

hyacinth · Post by **hyacinth** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 6:25 pm

I'd like to ask Franz a question if I can without getting into a debate .
From one of your posts :
2. When Bridget and Mrs. Churchill went upstairs to search Abby, the guest room door was open. We are almost sure that this is a fact (cf. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill’s testimonies). I accepted it, I didn’t refute it. I think that this fact could demonstrate Lizzie’s innocence.
How would the guest room door being open demonstrate Lizzie's innocence ?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:04 pm

Franz wrote:Hey Yooper, I am not sure what would you like to say with the word "outcome". What I am sure is, that Lizzie was guilty is only a theory, nothing else but only a theory. Therefore, this theory is not a fact.

As I always said, I appreciate the difference between us. Good week-end.

Outcome=Conclusion.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:05 pm

I have to agree hyacinth, and I was thinking the same thing too. How does an open door prove Lizzie's innocence?

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:16 pm

Hey Hyacinth and Smugeman, here is the link of my very first post in the forum.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5126

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:18 pm

Smudgeman wrote:I have to agree hyacinth, and I was thinking the same thing too. How does an open door prove Lizzie's innocence?

I didn't say "prove", I said "demonstrate", it's different.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:19 pm

Yooper wrote:
Franz wrote:Hey Yooper, I am not sure what would you like to say with the word "outcome". What I am sure is, that Lizzie was guilty is only a theory, nothing else but only a theory. Therefore, this theory is not a fact.

As I always said, I appreciate the difference between us. Good week-end.
Outcome=Conclusion.

Soory, I don't accept it as "conclusion".

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:29 pm

Franz wrote:
Yooper wrote:
Franz wrote:Hey Yooper, I am not sure what would you like to say with the word "outcome". What I am sure is, that Lizzie was guilty is only a theory, nothing else but only a theory. Therefore, this theory is not a fact.

As I always said, I appreciate the difference between us. Good week-end.
Outcome=Conclusion.
Soory, I don't accept it as "conclusion".

That's unfortunate, I do.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:30 pm

Aamartin wrote:I shouldn't cite this since I can't remember where I read it-- but I did read once that nervous people, who are guilty-- when questioned offer too much information.

Lizzie would have been better off to allow Abby to be found when the police searched the house.

If Lizzie did indeed believe that Abby was out but 'thought' she heard her come back in-- why didn't she also call out for her when she called out for Bridget?

And, I have said this before-- you can get A LOT done in 2-3 minutes if you have impetus to do so. I can completely unload my dishwasher or fold an entire load of clothes in the time it take microwave popcorn to pop. 2 minutes 30 seconds.

Lizzie could have cleaned herself up before calling out for Bridget IMO.

I totally agree with you Aamartin. You can get a lot done in very a short period of time. If you actually sit and time it out on the clock it does not go by as quickly as one would think. I don't think you'd be moving at a leisurely pace after just committing a murder either.

Franz, yes I suppose it would be possible for a murderer to cover himself and carry it all away in a bag. The point I was trying to make with my post was that if someone is convinced that Lizzie's lack of blood means she is not guilty they must think that she needed to be so splattered with blood she would have had to change her clothing and wash up. And that she was so covered in blood the cleaning up was really time consuming. If they think she did not have enough time to clean herself up how would an intruder get away with it? It does not make sense to say that Lizzie did not have enough time to clean herself up afterward because she was that covered in gore, but an intruder could leave the house without even washing up and walk down the street unnoticed. Either way it points to a killer who was not as covered in blood as everyone thinks they should have been.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:32 pm

Allen,
Did Shelley attempt to time Andrew's killing through a re-enactment? I think she talked about it at one time.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:43 pm

I remember her talking about a re-enactment. I have tried searching through the posts but I haven't found it yet.

hyacinth · Post by **hyacinth** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:50 pm

In my opinion whether the guest room door was open or closed wouldn't indicate that Lizzie or someone else was the killer .
As for the note . I don't believe there was one but in the off chance there was one the sender and or delivery person might have stayed silent because they " didn't want to get involved "
Also in my opinion Lizzie was guilty because she had the means , motive , and opportunity .

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:51 pm

I just looked among Shelley's posts, but all I found was the timing for Bridget's run to Alice's house. It may be that she posted something about having done a timing for Andrew's murder previously, I'm sure it would be of great interest. If I remember correctly, she concluded that there was ample time for all the maneuvers, but I'm not positive about that.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:02 pm

hyacinth wrote:In my opinion whether the guest room door was open or closed wouldn't indicate that Lizzie or someone else was the killer .
As for the note . I don't believe there was one but in the off chance there was one the sender and or delivery person might have stayed silent because they " didn't want to get involved "
Also in my opinion Lizzie was guilty because she had the means , motive , and opportunity .

Lizzie testified that the door was closed when she came downstairs after Andrew arrived. Mrs. Churchill and Bridget found the door open when they found Abby. The open door implies that someone other than Lizzie opened it, possibly an intruder. The problem as I see it is that Lizzie also said she was in the kitchen when Andrew arrived, so I would take what Lizzie said with a grain of salt.

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:04 pm

Allen wrote:
Aamartin wrote:I shouldn't cite this since I can't remember where I read it-- but I did read once that nervous people, who are guilty-- when questioned offer too much information.

Lizzie would have been better off to allow Abby to be found when the police searched the house.

If Lizzie did indeed believe that Abby was out but 'thought' she heard her come back in-- why didn't she also call out for her when she called out for Bridget?

And, I have said this before-- you can get A LOT done in 2-3 minutes if you have impetus to do so. I can completely unload my dishwasher or fold an entire load of clothes in the time it take microwave popcorn to pop. 2 minutes 30 seconds.

Lizzie could have cleaned herself up before calling out for Bridget IMO.
I totally agree with you Aamartin. You can get a lot done in very a short period of time. If you actually sit and time it out on the clock it does not go by as quickly as one would think. I don't think you'd be moving at a leisurely pace after just committing a murder either.

Franz, yes I suppose it would be possible for a murderer to cover himself and carry it all away in a bag. The point I was trying to make with my post was that if someone is convinced that Lizzie's lack of blood means she is not guilty they must think that she needed to be so splattered with blood she would have had to change her clothing and wash up. And that she was so covered in blood the cleaning up was really time consuming. If they think she did not have enough time to clean herself up how would an intruder get away with it? It does not make sense to say that Lizzie did not have enough time to clean herself up afterward because she was that covered in gore, but an intruder could leave the house without even washing up and walk down the street unnoticed. Either way it points to a killer who was not as covered in blood as everyone thinks they should have been.

Exactly! Not only would the killer need to hurry-- but I would think (he)/she would be adrenalin filled as well.

Especially if the killer was experienced from the first kill. Abby. After who's death had plenty of time to clean up and come up with a plan for the 2nd murder. Or, if (he)/she did indeed plan to go out and allow Andrew to live-- at least had enough sense to improvise and know something would have to be done somewhat differently the 2nd time!

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:06 pm

Allen wrote:The simplest explanation of the facts for me is she was smart enough that she covered herself with something. Andrew's coat was found underneath his head. She could have worn that coat backwards, and afterwards tucked it up under his head. The blood being on the coat was of course thought to be only natural because his head was resting on it. And I believe most of the blood splatter was directed away from her in the first place so there was little clean up to be done. I don't believe the killer was that blood splattered due to the lack of blood found through out the rest of house. Which I think points towards someone who could clean themselves up afterward. Like Lizzie. If a blood covered killer was hiding out for over an hour, how did he not leave any blood behind? Why was there no trail? No bloody transfer? Nothing? If the killer was that covered in gore, and was not Lizzie, how would they make it down the street unnoticed? Either scenario the killer could not have been covered in bloody gore. It's my opinion there was relatively little clean up on Lizzie's person, and she had plenty of time to get rid of the evidence with a tuck of the coat under Andrew's head.

I also think Lizzie wore the coat backwards to kill her Father. I watch alot of court TV, and in the case of Sara Johnson who murdered her parents, the prosecutors proved she wore a bathrobe backwards to kill her father, then threw it in the garbage which they retrieved before the garbage collection was completed. Even though she took a shower, they had the blood evidence on the bathrobe, too bad they did not have blood analysis back in Lizzie's day. There really is not a reason Andrew would be wearing a coat on such a hot summer day.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 8:46 pm

Andrew had been in the habit of removing the Prince Albert coat and hanging it in the dining room closet, if memory serves. He would then put on his cardigan jacket which hung on a nail in the kitchen, again, if memory serves. It sounds to me like he took good care of the Prince Albert coat, certainly better than the cardigan. It seems inconsistent that Andrew would use the Prince Albert as a pillow, because he wasn't usually that careless with it. If the coat had been hung in the dining room closet on August 4th, Lizzie probably could have retrieved it quietly and put it on backwards as a cover quite easily.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:35 pm

Aamartin wrote: you can get A LOT done in 2-3 minutes if you have impetus to do so. ... Lizzie could have cleaned herself up before calling out for Bridget IMO.

Yes, aamartin. I agree with you that if one wants, one can do many things in a short time. But I asked Possumpie which should be the simplest answer for that question.

I repeat here. No blood was found on Lizzie’s body or on her clothes, the simplest explanation should be:

a. Lizzie was innocent, she didn’t kill Andrew.
b. Lizzie was the killer but she quickly cleaned her up.
c. Lizzie was guilty but she had a conspirator who killed Andrew (and Abby).

Now another question: the Borden case was an extremely ferocious crime, it’s more probable that the killer was

a. A man.
b. A woman (Lizzie).

If I must chose the simplest answer, my choice should be (a.) for both questions. What is your choice? When you consider the two questions, please don’t let you influenced by other circumstantial evidence against Lizzie. For example, for the second question, if someone says: “My choice is (a.) A man. However, other evidence incriminate Lizzie…” I accept this answer as valid, even though I don’t think the second part of the answer regard (directly) the question. If someone says: “My choice is (b.) A woman (Lizzie), because I think women are more cruel than men.” Bah! I accept this answer as valid, even though I don’t agree with his reason. But if someone says: “My choice is (b.) A woman (Lizzie), because other evidence incriminate her.” I won’t accept this answer as valid.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 3:46 pm

hyacinth wrote: Also in my opinion Lizzie was guilty because she had the means , motive , and opportunity .

If this is your reason for Lizzie's guilt, you should, in my opinion, prove that it was absolutely impossible that any onther person could have means, motives and opportunity all together as well.

hyacinth · Post by **hyacinth** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:50 pm

Thanks for your opinion Franz but I have no intention of getting into a debate .

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:00 pm

Lizzie was not subjected to a body search.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:13 pm

Aamartin wrote:Lizzie was not subjected to a body search.

Good point!

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:32 pm

I would appreciate much more if you would like to answer my questions directly. What is your simplest answer? and why?