"lizzie a. borden did not kill her father"!!!!!!!

jeffery · Post by **jeffery** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:31 pm

the reasons i believe lizzie did not kill her father are:

1-there were no sightings of blood on lizzie's person by any witness after she had called bridget to come downstairs!

2-lizzie was spotted by hyman lubinsky walking towards the side door of the house at the time andrew was killed!

3-there were two people who saw a stranger in the yard between the side door and the front gate,right after andrew was killed!

4-after lizzie killed her step-mother,she changed from the blood spotted blue cotton dress to the blue silk dress in order to go out to establish an alibi for the death of her father.
which is what she did by going out to the backyard.
after changing,lizzie comes downstairs and greets her father,bridget goes upstairs,lizzie tells her father that he has a business caller waiting in the parlor,she leaves the house,and instead of going according to the plan by going out the cellar door,lizzie goes out the side door!
that's why she was stating early on that the screen door was wide open when she came back from the barn,but later changed it to being up in the loft of the barn toward the back to where she could not see anyone entering or leaving the house!

5-the murder of mr. borden was done by a left handed assassin!
lizzie was right handed!

6-the blood spots on the parlor door were created by a backward swing and by a left handed assassin standing behind mr. borden!
(there is also a paper report that indicates this and i will post that later)

my belief is that after bridget went upstairs and lizzie went outside,mr. borden welcomed mr. davis from the parlor to the sitting room at which time,mr. davis came around the small table in front of the sofa where mr. borden was sitting upright on the sofa,(directly beneath the village elms picture.)
mr. davis was then standing between the end of the sofa and the kitchen door.
mr. davis then took a concealed meat cleaver out of his frock coat and struck the first blow to the left side of mr. borden's face!
thus causing the single bloodspot on the kitchen door.
the medical testimony of dr's dolan,cheever and draper given at the trial
states that they had not found one spot of blood on the table in front of the sofa or anywhere else in the south side of the room beyond the sofa.
with most of the spots being on the wallpaper behind the sofa,on the parlor door,one or two spots on the ceiling directly above mr. borden's head and one on the door leading to the kitchen!
after delivering the first blow or two,mr. davis then comes back around the table to the head of the sofa and finishes the job.

the weapon used was a meat cleaver,not a hatchet!!!!

thers just no way that a hatchet could have been the cause of 3 or 4 of those wounds on mr. borden's head,because they found 2 of them measuring at 4 1/2 inches and one measuring at 4 1/2 +

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:59 pm

So you're proposing two murder weapons--one for Lizzie killing Abby and another for Davis killing Andrew, right?

What, exactly are the chances that two people will be killed with mutiple blows to the head by two different murderes using two different weapons?

Either a hatchet or a cleaver is a pretty odd murder weapon to begin with, but to think that one murderer will chooose to hit somebody in the head several times with a hatchet and then, later, another murderer with choose to hit the second victims in the head several times with a cleaver, just seems to be too much of a coincidence for me.

Did they talk about this in advance? "You need to hit your victim only in the head, ten or fifteen times, with a sharp heavy bladed instrument. You won't see what I did and I can't see what you're going to do, but they both have to look so similar that most people will think it was done by the same person. . ."

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:03 pm

As I see it, this Theory may fall on the number hits on Abbys and Andrews head, or Bridget hade to be in on it.

I can belive (hardly) that Briget did not hear the fist murder. But, just if Abby died before she even could scream, so she had to be killed in one of the first hits. So why keep on hitting? Well, I guess the murder just got carried away.

The same must be said on the second murder. IF Bridget did not hear this one ether it must tell us that Andrew died from the fist hit. And this time i dont really think the murder would get carried way again. Not if this was a conspiracy. So if it really was an conspiracy, i belive Bridget must had know about it as well (and maybe that it what Jefferys saying?)

(Damn its hard to write about this in English. I have so much to say but in english it juts look and sounds pityfull. This would be a lot more easy for me if you al learnd swedish...

)

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:23 pm

watching bergman films with english subtitles is about as far as i've gone in learning swedish.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:37 pm

So did they collude or was it all a very wonderful coincidence?

As for the murder weapon(s)....

If Lizzie did it and the handless hatchet was the instrument of death-- she planned to kill both of them and the alibi story is hogwash. If she did plan to leave the house she would have destroyed the hatchet right after whacking Abby as she would have thought she was done with it. It wouldn't have been around to kill Andrew.

Personally I find the conspiracy theories hard to accept. A secret is a secret as long as only one person knows it and I feel strongly that if there was some sort of conspiracy between even 2 people that someone would have blabbed.

The thing that bothers me the most about Lizzie is her "cooler than a cucumber" demeanor. I do think she could have done it and kept quiet about it....

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:00 pm

Jeffery! You seem very sure of yourself! It's kind of alarming!

Hyman Lubinsky may have seen Lizzie after she'd killed Andrew and had gone out into the yard to fling the weapon (hatchet, hand-axe, meat cleaver - it's never been proven exactly what it was, only what it wasn't) up onto a neighbor's roof.

How long have you been studying the case, I wonder? Some of the "facts" you claim are certainly still in dispute.

In other words, Lizzie may be innocent but, with all due respect, your post doesn't prove it.

Best,
BG

donj · Post by **donj** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:40 pm

Interesting thoughts Jeffrey

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:16 am

(Damn its hard to write about this in English. I have so much to say but in english it juts look and sounds pityfull. This would be a lot more easy for me if you al learnd swedish..-- Jimmy

Hi Jimmy!
I like the way you write. You construct good sentences. You make me feel quite cosmopolitan!

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:15 am

Hej Jimmy , Hur är den här? Gör den göra någon sinne i Svensk?

I was just trying out an English to Swedish translator and wanted to know if it was any good.

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:33 am

Kat:
Thanks. You are a wonderful person.

Susan:
Qiute good. Its was just one word that came out a bit wrong.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:21 pm

I'd rather read Jimmy's English than listen to the "English" of many of the clients I deal with on the phone every day here at the public defenders' office!

donj · Post by **donj** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:22 pm

I agree with Audrey's post

jamfaws · Post by **jamfaws** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:42 am

Interesting theory, but my gut instincts tell me it's wrong, I don't see how those victims could have been killed in the way they were by two separate people, and as it been proven beyond a doubt that Andrew was killed by a left handed assassin? and even if somebody was right handed (to write/sew etc) is it impossible for them to whack something with their left hand? and you can't make a judgement on whether Lizzie was innocent or guilty by the fact that no blood was found on her clothes/hair etc, she could have easily changed her clothes or worn something over the top (or like the movie strip naked-which I doubt) and you can't depend on witness statements that they saw her at such and such a time near the barn, as it's been mentioned she could have went outside to throw the hatchet or whatever it was on to the roof next door.

Cheers

Aaron

P.S.Jimmys English is great, wish I knew more than one language (or even one languge!)

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:54 am

If the murder was left or rigth handed must all depend on were the stood. Some say he stod in front of Andrew, some say behind.

I can´t really see how Lizzie would be able to hide the dress as well as the murder wepon (but of chourse, Lincon say Lizzie hand the bloddy dress UNDER another, and becouse the police officers were all men they never looked inside Lizzies dresses).

Also I cant really se Lizzie as the murderer, not alone anyway.

jamfaws · Post by **jamfaws** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:00 pm

So Jimmy who is your number 1 suspect in the case? mine changes on a regular basis, everytime I get away from Lizzie doing it, she comes back as the number 1 supect.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:33 pm

If Lizzie did hide her dress under another then she was VERY lucky! Some (most?) of those dresses were removed from the closet and inspected near a window to be seen in better light.

Another thing-- What is all this talk about nails? Emma said she couldn't find an empty nail to hang her own dress and thus encouraged Lizzie to rid the clothes press of the paint stained dress. Did they hang clothes hangers on nails or did they use the nails as pegs?

If Lizzie did the killings and if she was at all blood splattered she experienced incredible and almost unbelievable luck...

If there had been a lottery in 1892 she would have been ahead to buy a ticket and leave the hatchet alone...

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:36 pm

I cant really get you a name. I dont know the reson why they were murdered at all (and in that lies the answer).

But while i been reading about Lizzie I have always have wiew of them them in the Jury.
"Is Lizzie A Borden gulity for murder in the first degrie?"

I have to say no to that. It is possible she knew about the murders, it may even be possible that she was in on it. But did she do it her self and alone? No, i dont think so.

The locked front door, the unbloddy dress, the missing murder wepon, Morses perfect alibi, the personens in front of 92 second street on the same morning - I think its just to much going on here.

My guess is that this was a consperisy with a few persons in on it. Morse was knew what was gonna happend, my guess is that two persons came to the house the morning.
But I Cant tell you who there were.

But I do belive that the whole answer in one way or an other lies in Andrews will, or maybe the lack of it.

jamfaws · Post by **jamfaws** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:42 pm

I always thought the locked front door added to Lizzies guilt, it's locked so nobody will come home by chance and stumble in on her chopping away at Abby, on the other hand if she did doit and she wanted to point the finger of suspicion away from herself it would have been in her best interest to keep the front door unlocked (unless she didn't have time to do this?) this whole thing just keeps going around in circles.

Not sure about Morse, something is not quite right I agree, but at one point or another they all seem suspicious!

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:40 pm

Another thing-- What is all this talk about nails? Emma said she couldn't find an empty nail to hang her own dress and thus encouraged Lizzie to rid the clothes press of the paint stained dress. Did they hang clothes hangers on nails or did they use the nails as pegs?

Audrey, I've always wondered about that too. Here we have two women with fine dresses that they go through great lengths to protect from sunlight and dust, just to hang them up on a nail?

I did a search and found that some of the older type nails are not like the nails we have today, they're square cut and more like pegs than nails. Maybe that is what they had to hang their clothes on?

"This Massachusetts company which claims to be America's oldest nail manufacturer offers older patterns of cut nails appropriate to period restoration. In addition, the company offers a variety of styles of nails and reproduction door hardware and hinges, all produced in an 1860s mill."

From this site:

http://www.oldhouseweb.com/stories/Detailed/10276.shtml

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:10 pm

Exactly Susan...

Both L&E seem fussy and I can not imagine they would just plop their clothing on nails...

But that is the word Emma used in testimony...

Q. How came you to see it at that time?
A. I went in to hang up the dress that I had been wearing during the day, and there was no vacant nail,
and I searched round to find a nail, and I noticed this dress.

Q. Did you say anything to your sister about that dress in consequence of your not finding a nail to
hang your dress on?
A. I did.

donj · Post by **donj** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:59 pm

I don't get it

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:06 am

The different police who entered the closet give a description of the contents, their search of them and the way these garments hung, I believe.
You might check there.

I know there were a couple of heavy silk dresses (dressy dresses maybe) that were not touched. (That was luck).

The paint-stained dress had to be hidden somewhere because no searcher saw it - and then it was burned Sunday- so where was it in the meantime?

Pippi · Post by **Pippi** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:33 am

It's always amazed me that people hung their close on pegs like we have at our front door for as long as they did...always wondered how they kept their dresses from getting those puckers in the back of the neck from the peg.

To think hangers didn't come along earlier.... I do know hangers and clothing rods as we know them didn't exist until later...don't recall when they became part of the everyday home.

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:04 am

Kat @ Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:06 am wrote:The different police who entered the closet give a description of the contents, their search of them and the way these garments hung, I believe.
You might check there.

I know there were a couple of heavy silk dresses (dressy dresses maybe) that were not touched. (That was luck).

The paint-stained dress had to be hidden somewhere because no searcher saw it - and then it was burned Sunday- so where was it in the meantime?

But how much paint was on it? It it not possible that the police saw the dress but not its paint?

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:12 am

jamfaws @ Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:42 pm wrote:I always thought the locked front door added to Lizzies guilt, it's locked so nobody will come home by chance and stumble in on her chopping away at Abby, on the other hand if she did doit and she wanted to point the finger of suspicion away from herself it would have been in her best interest to keep the front door unlocked (unless she didn't have time to do this?) this whole thing just keeps going around in circles.

Not sure about Morse, something is not quite right I agree, but at one point or another they all seem suspicious!

But if so Lizzie must had planned the whole thing. Was the second murder also planned? And Bridget, did she know about this?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:45 pm

The searchers deposed that they were looking for firstly, a man who did it, and next, blood-stained objects (weapon) or clothing.
I think the Bedford Cord was paint-stained enough that the searchers would see the paint (on a blue dress it might look like blood) and at least examine it, as that is what they were looking for.
But maybe not.

if Lizzie hid the dress, my theory was that she was lying/sitting on it on the lounge in her room.
I don't think she got up when they came into her room later on- she said this is going to make me sick.
After she left the room Saturday Marshal Hilliard looked at her bed and her lounge.(Prelim. 422).

Prelim
358
Fleet

A. I went to the door, and found that Dr. Bowen was in there holding the door.
Q. What?
A. Dr. Bowen was in there, and he held the door. I told him what I wanted to do, I wanted to get in there, and search the room and search the house pretty thoroughly. He said he would see Miss Lizzie. He said he had been bothered considerable, and he would see Miss Lizzie. "Just wait a moment". I waited.
(359)
Q. He was in the room?
A. Yes; so he turned and said something to her. Of course I do not know what it was. He came back and says "is it absolutely necessary that you should search this room, Lizzie wants to know?" I says "yes, I have got to do my duty as an officer, and I cannot leave the premises until I have searched the whole of this house." So he said something to her, and then opened the door, and I went in. I spoke to her and told her that I had got to search the house. She says "how long will it take you?" I says "it wont take me long. I have got to search it though." "I do hope you will get through soon", she says, "it will make me sick."

Trial
Mrs. Holmes

Q. What did they do? Did they do anything besides have this talk?
A. I cannot tell you whether at this time, just at this time, or whether it was later, they said they wished to search the room, and they said "search", and they made what I call quite a thorough search of Miss Lizzie's room and Miss Emma's room.

Q. Who was it said they might search?
A. Miss Lizzie. Miss Emma hadn't come home at this time.

Q. Did Miss Lizzie when they suggested a search make any objection whatever to it?
A. She did not. She was lying upon the lounge, and she still continued to lie there, scarcely opened her eyes.

Q. Where was she when Mr. Fleet first came in?
A. Sitting upon the lounge or couch.

Q. Now, tell us as well as you can what they did about searching that room, Mrs. Holmes.
A. They walked around the room. They went to that little closet that is used as a toilet room and pulled back the portiere, and looked

Page 1503

upon all the shelves above and below, and moved what things they chose. They looked around the bed, under the bed, felt of it, and they went into Miss Emma's room. I did not see particularly what they did. They were gone a few minutes and looked around there and came out.

Q. How long should you think they were in the room in all?
A. Talking and searching?

Q. At that time talking and searching?
A. Half an hour perhaps.

Q. What was Lizzie doing during that time?
A. Quietly reclining on the lounge.

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:23 am

But if the police did not know what there were looking for, is it not logic that they miss some stains on a dress? Especielly if the dress was in a box or something like that (i dont hand up clothes that I find ruined, I trhow it away or put in a box with orther junk).

And, miss Russel did say that the dress Lizzie burned was not a dress that she had on her Agusti 4.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:10 pm

No witness saw Lizzie in the Bedford cord on Thursday, you are correct.
It had a distinctive look, according to Emma: It was faded, and too long, longer than Lizzie's indoor dresses, with a ruffle around the hem. Alice says she never saw that dress since it was stained in the spring when it was new.
But Alice did confirm that was the dress that Lizzie burned, so why Lizzie chose to burn it on Sunday, the first day Bridget was gone for the day, is the big question. It seems suspicious, at the least.

jeffery · Post by **jeffery** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:50 am

lizzie changed dresses that morning!
that's why she was so evasive in her inquest testimony about bridget on the morning of the murder!
lizzie tried to give the impression that bridget did not see lizzie long enough that morning to be able to tell what lizzie was wearing, so bridget could later testify that lizzie had indeed changed her dress!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:39 pm

Why do you think Lizzie needed to change her dress that morning, and why did she burn a dress on Sunday?

Jimmy S. Windeskog · Post by **Jimmy S. Windeskog** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:28 am

Kat @ Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:10 pm wrote:No witness saw Lizzie in the Bedford cord on Thursday, you are correct.
It had a distinctive look, according to Emma: It was faded, and too long, longer than Lizzie's indoor dresses, with a ruffle around the hem. Alice says she never saw that dress since it was stained in the spring when it was new.
But Alice did confirm that was the dress that Lizzie burned, so why Lizzie chose to burn it on Sunday, the first day Bridget was gone for the day, is the big question. It seems suspicious, at the least.

Indeed it looks suspicious. But at the same time, it seams criminal stupied to my to burn the dress in that way if it was full of blood. Why not wait to the nigth at least?

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

"lizzie a. borden did not kill her father"!!!!!!!

"lizzie a. borden did not kill her father"!!!!!!!

Jeffery!!!