What if .....

[Harry]

Sometimes its fun to speculate on events in this case.

Assume Lizzie guilty.

What advantages would there have been for Lizzie to leave the house immediately after killing Andrew? Problems with doing that?

Any ideas?

[doug65oh]

Are yuo thinking "No" as far as "Maggie, come quick..." is concerned - a literal "cut and run" scenario?

[Smudgeman]

It might have been the best thing she could have done, providing she was careful not to lead Bridget on about anything. The best thing for having an alibi for Andrew mind you. I mean, Bridget was in and out of the house between 9:15 and 10:20. She would not have an alibi for Abby, but if she told Bridget she was going shopping, she would have to be seen by somebody. She couldn't say she was at Sargents if nobody there testified that she was there. It might have been very risky to say you were out with all those people out there, and nobody can back up what you say. If Lizzie really did put on a hat that day, maybe she was planning on leaving, but when Andrew returned home, it ruined her plans and she had to resort to plan B? Just some rambling thoughts........

[Harry]

I was speculating that she did not call Bridget. That gives her some 25 minutes or so until at least Andrew is discovered since Bridget was not due downstairs until about 11:30 to prepare dinner. Probably even more time since Bridget would not go into the sitting room for a while.

[Harry]

That's what I was thinking as well, Scott. She has to go somewhere and be seen when there to establish her alibi.

[Yooper]

That would leave Bridget holding the bag, with an explanation of having been in her room napping. Lizzie could have said she was anywhere during the morning hours, but being away from the house means being recognized by someone, in all likelihood. Lizzie would run the same risk of being seen leaving as an intruder would. Mrs. Churchill would likely have seen her because the timing would have been almost the same as having sent Bridget for Dr. Bowen.

If anyone saw her and noticed the time, she would also be a suspect, with the additional burden of fleeing the scene to explain. This fact alone may have made Lizzie decide to call Bridget rather than risk being seen leaving. It is ironic that she suggests an intruder, under the circumstances of going unnoticed, as being believable.

[Harry]

She may want to have been seen leaving. If she left the house at 11:05 and Andrew's body not discovered until at least a half hour later, say 11:35, what would the condition of his blood have been?

I remember his blood being described as still dripping but by whom and at what time of day I can't recall without researching. It's after midnight here so I'll check that tomorrow.

It's fun to speculate (an that's all this is) and it sometimes clears away things that could not have been.

[Kat]

Lizzie did not report an "intruder"- she also takes pains to make Knowlton understand that she could see the back door from the barn loft window. She has said that not seeing Abbie all morning has always "been a mystery."

64(21)
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.

[Kat]

By trying to figure out if Lizzie would gain any advantage by leaving, rather than sticking it out, makes me then ask why would she need to stick it out? Why would she stay?

[sguthmann]

i often wonder if this was a case of someone subconsciously wanting to be caught? how else to explain Lizzie's very bold (to say the least) decision to admit she was at the home place during both murders, introducing an unbelievable story about a possible intruder who slipped in and out unseen, and burning a dress in full view of witnesses in the days immediately following the murders?

if Lizzie had gone out, even if she couldn't find anyone who would testify that they saw her out and about, doesn't that seem to still fit what most people would do, especially a guilty party - place themself anywhere but at the murder scene, anywhere but at at the very place and during the very time that the murders were committed?

other reasons for Lizzie to stick with the story that she was at home during the whole morning:
- She knew that if she was "away" that would practically ensure Bridget would take the brunt of the suspicion and would likely be at a high risk for a conviction.
- Her story, while implausible, could work as long as every small detail was accounted for and no evidence linking her directly with either murder was ever found.
- By behaving in the complete opposite of how many guilty parties would, she just might just have inspired some to think she had to be innocent (sort of the "reverse psychology" idea).

So the big question would be - again, assuming she was guilty - did she stick with being at home that morning (1) as part of a deliberate and masterful scheme (that outwitted everyone as planned), or (2) because certain unplanned details in the events of the day required it to be so, or (3) were the events of the morning so unplanned, so spontaneous, that she hadn't thought that far ahead? i tend to lean to 1 or 2 as most likely.

but the thing of it is, i really don't feel that i have a very good grasp of her true intellect? she was educated, a reader, gravitated to cultural pursuits to be sure, but how "bright" was she? was she capable of a genius plot that was carried out so well that she could not be convicted? was she the fortunate recipient of "dumb luck," smiled upon by fate that aug 4th? even though she feigned ignorance, she HAD to know she'd be the #1 suspect from the start. had she already accepted and planned for it? indeed, was that part of her master plan? did she deliberately behave in such a way that would only strengthen the suspicions surrounding her involvement? or was she so arrogant that in spite of the suspicions, she believed that she could never be convicted for the crimes - because of lack of hard evidence, because she was a woman, because of her class standing, etc, etc.......just how much of that deadly affair did she orchestrate?

[doug65oh]

This is from Phil Harrington's trial testimony regarding the appearance of Andrew Borden's wounds - pages 558-559 it would be:

Q. Can you give any further description about the part of Mr. Borden's body which had been wounded and the blood which was about it?
A. The face was all cut and covered with blood. The clothes were stained, the shirt front and part of the coat.
Q. Did you notice anything with reference to the condition of that blood? If you did tell us.
A. Yes, sir. There was some of it very dark as though it was from the veins, and there was more of it very bright, of an artery hue.
Q. At that time can you tell us anything with reference to its thickness; did you observe anything?
A. Yes, sir; it was quite fresh, and as I stood there, or just as I got there and took this sheet, there was a small drop trickled down the side of the face.
----
It's interesting there (I thought, anyway) that Harrington does a pretty credible job for a layman in trying to distinguish between the appearance of the blood - venous as opposed to artereal, and so forth.

The "running" droplet of blood there at the last is particularly fascinating. George Allen was despatched to No. 92 at quarter past 11, while Harrington arrived somewhere between twenty and twenty-five minutes - give or take five minutes - past the noon hour.

[sguthmann]

i believe from events occurring in the days and hours leading up to the murders, that Lizzie had already planned (to some extent) what was to take place Aug 4th. the visit to Alice Russell is proof enough of that for me, so there's at least 24 hrs prior planning. my point being, having established some sort of plan, come aug 4th what does she do? does she attempt to create any doubts that she may have been away when the murders occurred? no. does she do anything to further suspicions regarding the only other person on the premises during the murders (bridget)? no. in fact, it appears she may have been trying to get bridget to leave the house for a time, leaving her, Lizzie, the only one at home with Abby and Andrew. she seems to knowingly place herself in a very damaging light. so why would she deliberately do this?

[Kat]

We passed each other in posting, sguthman!

This is insidious- the apparent belief that Lizzie introduced an intruder into her story. That is Yooper saying that.

I hope to make clear that others say she said that.
She may have inferred such by her belief she herself did not kill anyone, but she doesn't ever say she herself did not kill anyone, because she was not asked. It's like she is presuming herself innocent- I don't know any other way to describe it.

78(35)
A. I did not notice anything else, I was so frightened and horrified. I ran to the foot of the stairs and called Maggie.
Q. Did you notice that he had been cut?
A. Yes; that is what made me afraid.
Q. Did you notice that he was dead?
A. I did not know whether he was or not.

.....
78(35)
Q. What did you tell Maggie?
A. I told her he was hurt.
Q. When you first told her?
A. I says "Go for Dr. Bowen as soon as you can, I think father is hurt."
Q. Did you then know that he was dead?
A. No, sir.

[Kat]

She must be protecting someone?
She knows Morse is in town and may return- she *protects* Bridget by trying to get her to leave and then finds Andrew's body before Morse can return?
That's the only time constraint I can come up with (Morse's possible return) because she is in charge of calling for help.

[Kat]

I appreciate your long, thoughtful posts, sguthmann- I am taking a break to re-read Lizzie's inquest testimony.

[IanR]

i really don't feel that i have a very good grasp of her true intellect? she was educated, a reader, gravitated to cultural pursuits to be sure, but how "bright" was she? was she capable of a genius plot that was carried out so well that she could not be convicted? was she the fortunate recipient of "dumb luck," smiled upon by fate that aug 4th?

Yes, that’s a good point. What astounds me is, assuming it was Lizzie, what an amazingly audacious and potentially disastrous plan (again, assuming there was some planning involved) that Lizzie dreamt up. There are so many variables, any of which could have gone wrong with calamitous results and, as you say, she had to realise she would be the number one suspect.

How could she be so confident that she could kill Abby without Bridget hearing? Firstly how could she be so sure that she could hit someone on the head and kill them without their screaming the place down? Secondly, even without a scream, how could she be sure the fall of the body wouldn’t be heard? When my six year old falls out of bed I can hear him in whichever room I’m in, and he’s not a portly adult. Presumably Bridget must have been outside, but it would have taken remarkable co-ordination on Lizzie’s part to manage to get her step mother in the right place at the right time.

How could she be so confident that her father would return when he did? He would only have to have been delayed a relatively short while and Mr Morse would have got home before him. Similarly, how could she be sure at what time Mr Morse would be back anyway, she hadn’t questioned him about his movements?

It must have taken great coolness on her part to have a dead body lying in the house for over an hour and a half, with the possibility of an unexpected caller turning up and potentially throwing her plans askew.

How could she be sure Bridget would go upstairs to her room when she did, and not come down again? Lizzie did make some vague comments about cheap material being available in town, but if they were designed to get rid of Bridget they failed and so she was fortunate Bridget took to her room. Again, how could she be so confident of not being heard when she attacked Mr Borden? She was also fortunate that her father laid down so compliantly on the couch at her suggestion – how disastrous it would have been if he’d decided to potter about in the yard, or had taken to his room almost below Bridget’s instead.

Demonstrably the plan worked and she wasn’t caught in the act. But it seems to me remarkably lucky that it did work. Perhaps if she’d been brighter she wouldn’t have dared attempt what she did in the manner that she did.

[Yooper]

I think Andrew's murder was a crime of opportunity. Lizzie could not have foreseen the scenario allowing it to take place. Depending on Lizzie's resolve to kill Andrew at that point, it may well be Bridget who was fortunate for having gone to her room.

Lizzie never said that an intruder was present in the house the day of the murders. Neither did Lizzie ever deny the presence of an intruder. When police questioned her as to whether she knew of anyone who her father had difficulty with, she had suggestions. Other people testified that Lizzie said that someone killed or hurt her father, which implies an intruder. Lizzie does not deny killing anyone until the end of the trial when she proclaims her innocence. Saying that she was in the barn when it happened implies that she did not kill Andrew. Saying that she believed Abby was out of the house implies she did not kill Abby.

[Yooper]

Lizzie's plea of not guilty is a denial of guilt, pure and simple. Lizzie is definitely assuming innocence, either because she is and has no choice, or she must pretend to be innocent. For Lizzie to say something like "If you ask me, an intruder must have done it" is ridiculous because that implies that Lizzie realizes that she might be a suspect. The danger for a guilty person is in offering too much.

[Yooper]

She may want to have been seen leaving. If she left the house at 11:05 and Andrew's body not discovered until at least a half hour later, say 11:35, what would the condition of his blood have been?

I remember his blood being described as still dripping but by whom and at what time of day I can't recall without researching. It's after midnight here so I'll check that tomorrow.

It's fun to speculate (an that's all this is) and it sometimes clears away things that could not have been.

It becomes a problem for Lizzie to leave the rear screen door unhooked without telling Bridget about it after specifically telling Bridget to mind the doors when she went to her room, or closing and locking the interior door and denying access to an intruder. If she locked the interior door, Bridget would have had exclusive opportunity. Leaving by the front door while leaving the rear screen hooked would accomplish the same thing.

Perhaps the smartest thing Bridget could do under those circumstances would be to go to Sargent's herself and establish an alibi! Simply pretend to know nothing about any murders, and let Uncle John discover the bodies.

[Harry]

This is from Phil Harrington's trial testimony regarding the appearance of Andrew Borden's wounds - pages 558-559 it would be:

Q. Can you give any further description about the part of Mr. Borden's body which had been wounded and the blood which was about it?
A. The face was all cut and covered with blood. The clothes were stained, the shirt front and part of the coat.
Q. Did you notice anything with reference to the condition of that blood? If you did tell us.
A. Yes, sir. There was some of it very dark as though it was from the veins, and there was more of it very bright, of an artery hue.
Q. At that time can you tell us anything with reference to its thickness; did you observe anything?
A. Yes, sir; it was quite fresh, and as I stood there, or just as I got there and took this sheet, there was a small drop trickled down the side of the face.
----
It's interesting there (I thought, anyway) that Harrington does a pretty credible job for a layman in trying to distinguish between the appearance of the blood - venous as opposed to artereal, and so forth.

The "running" droplet of blood there at the last is particularly fascinating. George Allen was despatched to No. 92 at quarter past 11, while Harrington arrived somewhere between twenty and twenty-five minutes - give or take five minutes - past the noon hour.

Thanks Doug. Very interesting. If the blood was still at least semi-liquid at 11:25 Lizzie could have been gone 20 minutes. The extra half hour to discover Andrew would have also cooled his body making body heat even less reliable in calculating time of death. It would not have changed the status of the intestine contents.

I agree on Harrington. I think he was a sharp young man and perhaps the favorite of Hilliard.

[Angel]

duplicate

[Angel]

quote from IanR:
"How could she be so confident that her father would return when he did? He would only have to have been delayed a relatively short while and Mr Morse would have got home before him."


Do we know anything about Andrew's habits? Was it his routine to go away in the morning to conduct business and then return and then spend time in the sitting room reading or napping? Maybe Lizzie knew what he usually did every morning and could count on his being in that room relaxing so she could take him unawares.

[william]

With only a twenty-five minute window, wouldn't Lizzie need all of this time to clean herself up?

[Harry]

If we believe Lizzie guilty apparently she was successful in cleaning herself up in about half that time. From approx. 10:57 when Bridget went upstairs to about 11:10 when Lizzie called her down.

That, to me, has always been the most troublesome fact about Lizzie's possible guilt.

[Shelley]

It takes very little time to change a shirtwaist and skirt. We think that Victorian fashions had hooks in the back, required a maid, etc.- but this is not true of the sort of garments Lizzie was wearing. I have unbuttoned a waist, stepped out of a skirt and put on a fresh outfit in exactly 1 minute 12 seconds, washed my hands thoroughly, washed off a hatchet in the kitchen sink and walked down to the cellar and back into the kitchen in another minute, 3 seconds, smoothed my hair, put a soiled dress in a bag to hide and called up the back stairs. None of this takes much time at all- and off course we do not know if Lizzie had to change her clothes the second time around. Point is- none of this takes much time. Lizzie also had opportunity to alter the scene during Bridget's runaround back and forth and down to Borden Street. Next time you come Harry, you can hold the stopwatch on me! And I did not rush like mad- just deliberate, calm movements in doing all the above.

[theebmonique]

It takes very little time to change a shirtwaist and skirt. We think that Victorian fashions had hooks in the back, required a maid, etc.- but this is not true of the sort of garments Lizzie was wearing. I have unbuttoned a waist, stepped out of a skirt and put on a fresh outfit in exactly 1 minute 12 seconds, washed my hands thoroughly, washed off a hatchet in the kitchen sink and walked down to the cellar and back into the kitchen in another minute, 3 seconds, smoothed my hair, put a soiled dress in a bag to hide and called up the back stairs. None of this takes much time at all- and off course we do not know if Lizzie had to change her clothes the second time around. Point is- none of this takes much time. Lizzie also had opportunity to alter the scene during Bridget's runaround back and forth and down to Borden Street. Next time you come Harry, you can hold the stopwatch on me! And I did not rush like mad- just deliberate, calm movements in doing all the above.

Shelley...when you mentioned that you did not rush, but used deliberate, calm movements...this makes me think that maybe if Lizzie had "rehearsed" for the events of August 4th, was why she was able to pull it off like she did ?





Tracy...

[william]

Shelley: It would take some time to dispose of the hatchet. There is no evidence that any of the hatchets found in the cellar were used in the murders. This diposal would have to be added to Lizzie's clean-up time (and yours) If she went outside and threw it up on Crowe's barn roof, buried it in the yard - temporarily stuck it into the filled-up well or disposed of it in some other manner unknown to us, then this would have to be added to the ovreall time.

[Shelley]

Yes, I was taking the time in my trip to the cellar to hide it. If she had thought ahead of time, or after Abby's murder, as to where the best place to dispose of it would be, this would have made it simpler the second time around. I actually saved time when I took the bloody hatchet downstairs, had my clean change of clothing already in the laundry room waiting, washed the hatchet down there and hid it in the wood room before coming upstairs- about 30 seconds can be shaved off if all of this is done in the same location. I will try throwing it on Crowe's shed this weekend and see how many more seconds that might add. After Abby's killing, she would have had oceans of time to clean up, rethink strategy, figure out where to hide things, destroy evidence, etc. I figure there was only about 10-12 minutes after Andrew's- but with only needing about 3 to change and wash up (if she actually needed to do that) there is still time to go into the back yard, just a short distance from that side door, and pitch that hatchet. That may have been the time and reason a woman was seen in the yard by the ice cream peddler.

[RayS]

Throwing an object like a hatchet on a roof would make a noise that would attract unwanted attention. Better to do this after dark (no street lights).
But neither Lizzie or Bridget did this.

[RayS]

She must be protecting someone?
She knows Morse is in town and may return- she *protects* Bridget by trying to get her to leave and then finds Andrew's body before Morse can return?
That's the only time constraint I can come up with (Morse's possible return) because she is in charge of calling for help.

But Andy was alive when Lizzie told Bridget about a sale. Letting her go up to the 3rd floor also get her out of the way (for the meeting). Then Lizzie left to go to the backyard, out of the house as well.

[Allen]

Lizzie never said that an intruder was present in the house the day of the murders. Neither did Lizzie ever deny the presence of an intruder. When police questioned her as to whether she knew of anyone who her father had difficulty with, she had suggestions. Other people testified that Lizzie said that someone killed or hurt her father, which implies an intruder. Lizzie does not deny killing anyone until the end of the trial when she proclaims her innocence. Saying that she was in the barn when it happened implies that she did not kill Andrew. Saying that she believed Abby was out of the house implies she did not kill Abby.

Yes, she implies an intruder had gotten in by saying someone has killed her father. She isn't going to confess that she did it herself. She also plainly stated she did not believe anyone else from the household could have been capable of committing the murders. So by process of illimination she is implying an intruder was in the house. But then she also placed herself in position to have seen anyone coming or going from the back door of the house. Lizzie's alibi when you get right down to it is just mind boggling. First there are all the inconsistencies, the note which was never found, her "hearing" Abby come in when no opportunity existed for her to do so, her belief that no one from the house hold could've done it, but that she was watching the back door.

[Allen]

As for finding a place to hide the hatchet. There really wouldn't be the necessity to have hidden it before she called Bridget down. Bridget never went into the sitting room or any other part of the house. She basically came downstairs and went straight out the back door.

[Angel]

And, if it was a meat cleaver or an ice axe, as I've always thought because of Andrew's neatly sliced eyeball, it could have been washed clean as a whistle and popped back into a kitchen drawer within moments.

[theebmonique]

With the flurry of activity after calling Bridget down, I can't see how Lizzie would have had time to hide an axe. If she hid anything, I think it would have had to been hidden before she called for Bridget, or as Angel suggests...hiding a meat cleaver/ice axe in plain sight...in a kitchen drawer.





Tracy...

[Shelley]

Yes, I even read somewhere the sharp edge of a candlestick might have done the job. Looking carefully at meat cleavers- yes, it would be sharp- but would it be heavy enough to crush those monstrous holes in the skull? A meat cleaver also does not have much of a handle, about comparable to a carving knife. The leverage the 12 inch hatchet handle has, and the density of the steel head is perfect for crushing and leaving sharp cuts. It is still my first choice as the possible weapon.

[Shelley]

I agree- unless she knew Dr. Bowen's schedule, she could not have counted on him not being home and on the scene quickly. I wish I knew if Lizzie knew John was coming back for lunch because that would have been a real factor in her actions. I think all was in place before Bridget was called down.

[Yooper]

Lizzie never said that an intruder was present in the house the day of the murders. Neither did Lizzie ever deny the presence of an intruder. When police questioned her as to whether she knew of anyone who her father had difficulty with, she had suggestions. Other people testified that Lizzie said that someone killed or hurt her father, which implies an intruder. Lizzie does not deny killing anyone until the end of the trial when she proclaims her innocence. Saying that she was in the barn when it happened implies that she did not kill Andrew. Saying that she believed Abby was out of the house implies she did not kill Abby.

Yes, she implies an intruder had gotten in by saying someone has killed her father. She isn't going to confess that she did it herself. She also plainly stated she did not believe anyone else from the household could have been capable of committing the murders. So by process of illimination she is implying an intruder was in the house. But then she also placed herself in position to have seen anyone coming or going from the back door of the house. Lizzie's alibi when you get right down to it is just mind boggling. First there are all the inconsistencies, the note which was never found, her "hearing" Abby come in when no opportunity existed for her to do so, her belief that no one from the house hold could've done it, but that she was watching the back door.

I agree, Allen, Lizzie told someone, I believe it was Mrs. Churchill, that someone has come in and killed father. For whatever reason, this doesn't seem to qualify as the story of an intruder. It seems that Lizzie must have used the term 'intruder' to qualify. Note that someone has 'come in' rather than vocalizing the obvious 'someone has killed father', which would include Lizzie. She absolutely implies an intruder with the statement.

[Kat]

This is insidious- the apparent belief that Lizzie introduced an intruder into her story. That is Yooper saying that.

I hope to make clear that others say she said that.
She may have inferred such by her belief she herself did not kill anyone, but she doesn't ever say she herself did not kill anyone, because she was not asked. It's like she is presuming herself innocent- I don't know any other way to describe it.

78(35)
A. I did not notice anything else, I was so frightened and horrified. I ran to the foot of the stairs and called Maggie.
Q. Did you notice that he had been cut?
A. Yes; that is what made me afraid.
Q. Did you notice that he was dead?
A. I did not know whether he was or not.

.....
78(35)
Q. What did you tell Maggie?
A. I told her he was hurt.
Q. When you first told her?
A. I says "Go for Dr. Bowen as soon as you can, I think father is hurt."
Q. Did you then know that he was dead?
A. No, sir.

I will repeat the inquest testimony I posted to this topic earlier to show that Lizzie did not claim anyone came in and killed her father. If you all wish to say that Bridget said Lizzie said - or Mrs. Churchill said Lizzie said- this is the correct way of telling the facts.
(I am not disputing what Bridget said or what Mrs. Churchill said- I am disputing what you guys think Lizzie said-- to be clear.)

You are right Yooper when you say her plea of Not Guilty in court is her only time she claims she did not kill.

I was thinking more in terms of Lizzie's statements under oath at the Inquest.

BTW: Is a person sworn to tell the truth before they plead guilty or not guilty?

[Kat]

If Lizzie did leave by the front door, with the screen door latched, that would not necessarily mean BRidget was then the only viable suspect as was mentioned- it could also be that there was someone already hidden in the house. That would be something to add to the equation, in my opinion. I don't rule it out.

[Kat]

At the end of her testimony, Lizzie is asked about anything that might help in the investigation. That is when she tells about the prowlers. Previously she had stated, when asked who was on bad terms with her father, that Hiram Harrington was.
She also did tell of *a man came* in the weeks leading up to the 4th.
She tells of 4 men who came. Clegg came 2x that week.

When the list was being devised as to obstacles to a killing of Andrew at that time of day, we should add these men who came by for business purposes possibly before the noon meal.

*edited for spelling.

[Kat]

Members here who are advanced in their case history may think I am being a *purist* but I keep in mind the drop-ins and those who may use the Forum for research etc.
Being a purist about who said what makes a difference I think. We should be clear for those readers. You are being read and recorded, so quality, hopefully, is uppermost.

[Yooper]

What I think Lizzie said is what Mrs. Churchill stated. Mrs. Churchill was consistent, from the Witness Statements to the Trial Testimony. Lizzie said a great many things at the Inquest, and in my opinion, it is a mistake to use her Inquest Testimony as proof of her veracity. The fact that she was under oath is negligible. According to the court, she was also under the influence of morphine and this was sufficient to have her testimony excluded from the trial. Apparently her oath was given under the same influence. Besides, if she was guilty of murdering her parents, lying under oath pales by comparison.

I said in an earlier post that Lizzie suggested an intruder. She implied it in a statement to Mrs. Churchill and she did nothing to dissuade investigation of an intruder. She offered an opinion as to who didn't do it and implied that she couldn't have done it. I can think of nothing more that she could have done, short of saying "it was an intruder", to suggest an intruder!

[Yooper]

If Lizzie did leave by the front door, with the screen door latched, that would not necessarily mean BRidget was then the only viable suspect as was mentioned- it could also be that there was someone already hidden in the house. That would be something to add to the equation, in my opinion. I don't rule it out.

Don't forget, we're assuming Lizzie to be guilty.

[Kat]

This is what you, Yooper, said, in part:
If she [Lizzie] locked the interior door, Bridget would have had exclusive opportunity. Leaving by the front door while leaving the rear screen hooked would accomplish the same thing.

I took your claim, that under the circumstances you outlined, then Bridget would have "exclusive opportunity" and added that there could have been an extra component to the equation which would be someone already hiding in the house.

As far as arguing anymore about what Lizzie said, we cannot just discount what she says. She is a viable witness. All I ask is that we maintain the difference between what someone else claims Lizzie said, and what Lizzie claims she said. A differentiation would be optimal, and if we proceed that way I have no more complaint on this matter.

[Yooper]

I see what you mean, from the standpoint of Bridget's defense she could contend a hidden murderer. It would appear initially to be exclusive opportunity from the standpoint of framing Bridget. The reality is that Lizzie was the culprit, so it wasn't exclusive opportunity at all.

What about the hatchet? Does Lizzie take it along and dispose of it or does she leave it in the house?

I will do my best to differentiate between sources for statements, but I can't guarantee immediate results. Some patience may be necessary. I agree, what Lizzie said has value, especially what was said before she realized she was in jeopardy.

[Shelley]

"before she realized she was in jeopardy."

And that cuts right to the core of the matter- I agree! When the heat was turned up, other little details were added and changed. The defensive wall went up in a hurry. I always wondered how things might have unfolded had the Mayor NOT slipped up in that parlor and tipped Lizzie that SHE was suspected. I believe that Lizzie never, for an instant thought she would be suspected, and when she realized that she was not safe- she lost it, necessitating the sedation, morphine, etc. Elizabeth Montgomery does a pretty good job of conveying Lizzie falling apart in terror and realization of what could happen.

[RayS]

Members here who are advanced in their case history may think I am being a *purist* but I keep in mind the drop-ins and those who may use the Forum for research etc.
Being a purist about who said what makes a difference I think. We should be clear for those readers. You are being read and recorded, so quality, hopefully, is uppermost.

Anybody who takes an Internet site as Gospel truth is in the Wrong Church.
Errare humanum est.
People have to always weigh what they are being told.

Yes, it was an Intruder who did the murders. That is based on common sense and the story of other such crimes. No blood spatter on clothes, no murder weapon == an intruder who carried the murder weapon away.

Dr. Samuel Sheppard said so to his dying day. Read more books to educate yourselves.

[Smudgeman]

Members here who are advanced in their case history may think I am being a *purist* but I keep in mind the drop-ins and those who may use the Forum for research etc.
Being a purist about who said what makes a difference I think. We should be clear for those readers. You are being read and recorded, so quality, hopefully, is uppermost.

Anybody who takes an Internet site as Gospel truth is in the Wrong Church.
Errare humanum est.
People have to always weigh what they are being told.

Yes, it was an Intruder who did the murders. That is based on common sense and the story of other such crimes. No blood spatter on clothes, no murder weapon == an intruder who carried the murder weapon away.

Dr. Samuel Sheppard said so to his dying day. Read more books to educate yourselves.

Most everyone here did not just fall off of a turnip truck Ray. Many of us are well educated and have college degrees, Masters, PHD's. So insinuating that reading alot of books qualifies you to be the expert on common sense is humorous.

[Yooper]

"before she realized she was in jeopardy."

And that cuts right to the core of the matter- I agree! When the heat was turned up, other little details were added and changed. The defensive wall went up in a hurry. I always wondered how things might have unfolded had the Mayor NOT slipped up in that parlor and tipped Lizzie that SHE was suspected. I believe that Lizzie never, for an instant thought she would be suspected, and when she realized that she was not safe- she lost it, necessitating the sedation, morphine, etc. Elizabeth Montgomery does a pretty good job of conveying Lizzie falling apart in terror and realization of what could happen.

Lizzie seemed a bit shifty even before she realized she was suspected. Initial explanations to various people as to her whereabouts during the murders seem to progress from the yard to the barn to the hayloft. On the surface this may seem an excusable variation to a degree, to be in the hayloft one must also have been in the barn and in the yard. But note the progression, yard->barn->hayloft, each time a bit further removed and more isolated from the event. If she had begun with having been in the hayloft and later said that she had been outside or in the yard, it would be far less questionable, possibly the result of a person having answered the same question a dozen times. Why would an innocent person not simply say at the outset that she wanted to find some lead in the hayloft if that is really where she was? The fact that her supposed whereabouts evolve to that explanation is incriminating.

[Kat]

Thanks Yooper. I see by the Witness Statements that Fleet claims Lizzie said that she found her father dead on the lounge,, and went to the back stairs and called Bridget...down stairs. told her that someone had killed father...
(Fleet's notes of talking to Lizzie, pg. 2.)
I also see that in his notes, page 3, that he attributes the same thing to Bridget: Lizzie called me down-stairs, saying that her father was dead, someone had killed him...
He's not using quotes and basically is paraphrasing. I think you probably have become as much of an expert on The Witness Statements, as I might be in Lizzie's inquest!

I do find, tho, that attrbuted to Lizzie, in the Witness Statements, by Fleet, pg. 2, that she first says she went in the barn. Page 4, under Doherty's transmittal of his notes, he says Lizzie said she was in the barn.
On page 3 [Edit here- page 5, not page 3], Harrington's notes give quotes that he claims Lizzie said, "I went out to the barn..." and further along he quotes her as saying she was "upstairs in the loft" only seemingly as a more precise explanation as to why she heard no noise.
In her inquest, the first I could find Lizzie describing where she was is on page 69: "...I went out to the barn."
Same page upon being asked "Whereabouts in the ban did you go?" Lizzie answers "Up stairs."

It seems more like a gradual progession within the framework of answering questions that were intended to make her more precise in her answers.