I appreciate the chance to see this. I would like to see more from the relevant authors on the subject. Speaking of more: this one cuts off soon after the presentation concludes, just as the audience questions begin. If the rest of the occasion was recorded, I look forward to watching that, too.
John Morse, the uncle, was very suspect. He had a ridiculously perfect alibi, even remembering the number of the street car he was on, describing people he saw along the way in detail, etc. He also had NOT been there to visit in two years, at that point, so his arrival was very coincidental. Last but not least, when he came back to the house, police and people were milling all over. Instead of asking what was going on, he went into the backyard and ate pears. After about 45 minutes, he finally entered into the back of the house and joined the chaos inside. He was a business partner of Andrew. Killing Abby would have eliminated one more person who could financially impact an inheritance or business deals. Lizzy had no way to wash up if she did it, and no one mentions her hair being wet, or blood on her. I also think the murders were committed at the same time, not 1-2 hours apart. Forensics back then were abysmal.
The theory that an illegitimate son, Wm "Billy," did it fits perfectly, but there's no direct link he was Andrew's son. There was lots o' talk about the cellar door being left open for him to enter the house, & it was likely NOT Lizzie who laughed on the stairs, but the killer. Bridget thought only Lizzie was in the house w/her & assumed it was her. Go figure.
It isn't really plausible that Bridget would not haveheard the murder being committed if she was napping nearby. A crime of that nature could not easily be committed soundlessly. Yet she claimed that she heard nothing while the crime was being comitted, and only discovered the body sometime later. That is not plausible. That we don't know what a person of interest's motive was is hardly proof that he/she had no motive. It just means that we haven't investigated that individual's circumstances and feelings sufficiently to know whether or not he/she had a motive. Let us suppose that the thrifty and judgmental Andrew, or his wife, had decided that Bridget's work performance was unsatisfactory, that they had given her notice of dismissal, and had refused to give her a "character" reference that would enable her to get another job. Of course we don't know whether orthat happened, But the police were so focused onLizzie that they don't seemed to have questioned her orher acquaintances extensively, or examined her letters, diary if shehad one, etc. This was part of the larger problem withthe investigation--the police had tunnel vision focused on Lizzie, and didn't seriously investigate other possible suspects.
Years after the murders, a hatchet SS found on the Crowed roof.Harvard scientists tested it for blood. There was none. The dress that was burned was covered with paint, not blood.
Emma was not with her friends that morning did not receive the telegram right away and failed to take many trains back home that day. A witness saw a strange man like a woman dressed in man’s clothes lurking around the house. Who else if you rule out Lizzie could have moved around that house undetected.
Same. He also left a lot of information out, important details around the facts that paint a very different picture. For example the pharmacy was literally only a 2-3 minute walk from the Borden house, where Lizzie had lived since she was 12. But she claimed she had no knowledge about it. Really? Literally right around the corner from your house, on the Main Street, when people frequently walked to travel short distances and she had no idea it was there? Lots of other things as well.
A thief comes along, sees a woman (Lizzie) exit side rear door & go into back yard or barn. Thinking house is empty he quickly slips in thru that same door, speedily checks out 1st floor, heads up front steps assuming or knowing jewelry & money would be kept upstairs. Unexpectedly spots woman upstairs (Abby), silences her. In his frenzied state he does overkill, now just wants to get out, but hears someone (Maid) from 3rd floor come down rear stairs, go to let someone inside (Andrew). In his nervousness he lets out what the woman thinks is a giggling sound. Man (Andrew) is let in, woman (maid) leaves, killer hears another woman enter & exit downstairs (Lizzie), on way out man spots the intruder, starts to get off couch, so killer rushes the few steps, silences the man in a fury of anger & desperation & races out. A short while later woman enters, discovers dead man, calls other woman down from 3rd floor, sends her to fetch dr while neighbor rushes over. Time of death not exact science. Upper room hotter than downstairs, window could have been open, air blowing on body, etc- woman discovered a good 15 minutes or more after man found, so her blood appears to have dried. Many assumed she died much earlier since no one saw her since early morning. Media sells many papers with lurid story, public wants police to instantly nab the killer, Lizzie is easiest suspect & solution to problem. For lack of any real proof, jury acquits. But Lizzie's reputation is ruined. She's made butt of taunts & rhymes, horrible scandal, ostracized, abandoned by many church friends. ( not because they think she's guilty but because of the scandal attached to her.)
@@nbenefiel I'm aware. She couldn't obtain it, but she tried to, and to cover up tried to say she didn't even know the pharmacy right around the corner from her existed.
There are two parts of the argument against Lizzie that never make any sense by the people arguing them. 1. they say she had to have heard the murders, but they ignore that Bridget didn't hear the murders. So apparently it's possible to not hear the murders that morning. 2. They say it makes no sense that somebody killed Abbie, then waited around an hour and half without being seen. Actually that sounds exactly like what a killer would do, if it were NOT Lizzie. You sneak into the house, you're hiding in the spare bedroom, you're discovered by Abbie, you kill her and simply close the door. Then when Andrew gets home, you wait for people to leave the rooom, kill him, and leave. Lizzie could have done it, but these two points of 'evidence' people throw out are hugely flawed. Bridget was in the house from 9 to 11:30 and never found Abbie, so why couldn't Lizzie have been in the house the same time and never found Abbie? If an outside intruder wanted to kill Andrew, he could have simply stayed in the spare bedroom with the body until Andrew got home. Now you still have all the other problems of Lizzie's behavior, and the motive that she had, and nobody saw an intruder enter or leave, etc. but these two points everybody always brings up are complete fallacies.
this is a good point... people assume it's lizzie in part because they think the killing of abby looks more 'violent and angry'. What if it was just more panicked? Killer was there to kill Andrew. Maybe he thought abby wouldn't be home that day, she finds him, he kills her, then hides and waits for his real target.
She more than likely did this with an iron. Wore a scruff over her head and face. Maybe, on her father's murder, Wore her father's coat over her body that was stuffed under his head.
Agree. What they described as 3 wounds on the back of Abbys head actually looks like a triangle in her autopsy photo ( Andrew's photo is too blurry to make out any details at all). The end of a flat iron is pointed & triangular. There were also 2 hooded, rubberised, full length womens raincoats in the home. They were wipe clean. Perfect cover up. They were called rain gossamers. The bloody rags in the cellar bucket werent menstrual as she claimed, they were clean up of blood etc.
It is pretty obvious that this was a murder suicide. Andrew killed his wife, left the home and returned. He felt guilt and killed himself when Lizzy left the room. Mystery solved. You're welcome.
No murder weapon was ever found despite numerous searches. No bloody clothing was found. There was no blood on Lizzie’s body. Bathing was difficult as there was no shower or tub. The only running water was in the kitchen and the barn. Lizzie was acquitted in an hour. Countless mock trials have also acquitted her.
I appreciate the chance to see this. I would like to see more from the relevant authors on the subject. Speaking of more: this one cuts off soon after the presentation concludes, just as the audience questions begin. If the rest of the occasion was recorded, I look forward to watching that, too.
John Morse, the uncle, was very suspect. He had a ridiculously perfect alibi, even remembering the number of the street car he was on, describing people he saw along the way in detail, etc. He also had NOT been there to visit in two years, at that point, so his arrival was very coincidental. Last but not least, when he came back to the house, police and people were milling all over. Instead of asking what was going on, he went into the backyard and ate pears. After about 45 minutes, he finally entered into the back of the house and joined the chaos inside. He was a business partner of Andrew. Killing Abby would have eliminated one more person who could financially impact an inheritance or business deals. Lizzy had no way to wash up if she did it, and no one mentions her hair being wet, or blood on her. I also think the murders were committed at the same time, not 1-2 hours apart. Forensics back then were abysmal.
Yes and the fact that she was found in the room he was staying in didn't help
Actually forensics weren’t that bad in the late 19th century. They were pretty good at establishing time of death back in the Middle Ages.
Also, John Morse was a butcher; how convenient? Plus, he was a man back in 1890s, unlike today!
@@roxanneshelton8671 A butcher! Didn't know that.
The theory that an illegitimate son, Wm "Billy," did it fits perfectly, but there's no direct link he was Andrew's son. There was lots o' talk about the cellar door being left open for him to enter the house, & it was likely NOT Lizzie who laughed on the stairs, but the killer. Bridget thought only Lizzie was in the house w/her & assumed it was her. Go figure.
It isn't really plausible that Bridget would not haveheard the murder being committed if she was napping nearby. A crime of that nature could not easily be committed soundlessly. Yet she claimed that she heard nothing while the crime was being comitted, and only discovered the body sometime later. That is not plausible.
That we don't know what a person of interest's motive was is hardly proof that he/she had no motive. It just means that we haven't investigated that individual's circumstances and feelings sufficiently to know whether or not he/she had a motive. Let us suppose that the thrifty and judgmental Andrew, or his wife, had decided that Bridget's work performance was unsatisfactory, that they had given her notice of dismissal, and had refused to give her a "character" reference that would enable her to get another job. Of course we don't know whether orthat happened, But the police were so focused onLizzie that they don't seemed to have questioned her orher acquaintances extensively, or examined her letters, diary if shehad one, etc. This was part of the larger problem withthe investigation--the police had tunnel vision focused on Lizzie, and didn't seriously investigate other possible suspects.
Thank you for sharing this very interesting & entertaining 😉 w the speakers bits of humor. It would of been nice to hear more of the Q&A
I had heard they found a hatchet on the neighbors barn roof? Also some clothes buried in the back of the borden's barn? thoughts?
Years after the murders, a hatchet SS found on the Crowed roof.Harvard scientists tested it for blood. There was none. The dress that was burned was covered with paint, not blood.
i love this guys vibe, i could listen to him talk about anything i think.
I agree.
Emma was not with her friends that morning did not receive the telegram right away and failed to take many trains back home that day. A witness saw a strange man like a woman dressed in man’s clothes lurking around the house. Who else if you rule out Lizzie could have moved around that house undetected.
It could have been William Borden
At no point in this lecture did I feel the author ever built a case in defense of Lizzie; if anything, I feel like he solidified the case against her.
Same. He also left a lot of information out, important details around the facts that paint a very different picture. For example the pharmacy was literally only a 2-3 minute walk from the Borden house, where Lizzie had lived since she was 12. But she claimed she had no knowledge about it. Really? Literally right around the corner from your house, on the Main Street, when people frequently walked to travel short distances and she had no idea it was there? Lots of other things as well.
A thief comes along, sees a woman (Lizzie) exit side rear door & go into back yard or barn. Thinking house is empty he quickly slips in thru that same door, speedily checks out 1st floor, heads up front steps assuming or knowing jewelry & money would be kept upstairs. Unexpectedly spots woman upstairs (Abby), silences her. In his frenzied state he does overkill, now just wants to get out, but hears someone (Maid) from 3rd floor come down rear stairs, go to let someone inside (Andrew). In his nervousness he lets out what the woman thinks is a giggling sound. Man (Andrew) is let in, woman (maid) leaves, killer hears another woman enter & exit downstairs (Lizzie), on way out man spots the intruder, starts to get off couch, so killer rushes the few steps, silences the man in a fury of anger & desperation & races out. A short while later woman enters, discovers dead man, calls other woman down from 3rd floor, sends her to fetch dr while neighbor rushes over. Time of death not exact science. Upper room hotter than downstairs, window could have been open, air blowing on body, etc- woman discovered a good 15 minutes or more after man found, so her blood appears to have dried. Many assumed she died much earlier since no one saw her since early morning. Media sells many papers with lurid story, public wants police to instantly nab the killer, Lizzie is easiest suspect & solution to problem. For lack of any real proof, jury acquits. But Lizzie's reputation is ruined. She's made butt of taunts & rhymes, horrible scandal, ostracized, abandoned by many church friends. ( not because they think she's guilty but because of the scandal attached to her.)
@@Catbooks Neither of the Bordens were killed by poison.
@@nbenefiel I'm aware. She couldn't obtain it, but she tried to, and to cover up tried to say she didn't even know the pharmacy right around the corner from her existed.
Lizzie doesn’t need a defense. As of today she’s innocent. It’s up to you to prove it.
There are two parts of the argument against Lizzie that never make any sense by the people arguing them.
1. they say she had to have heard the murders, but they ignore that Bridget didn't hear the murders. So apparently it's possible to not hear the murders that morning.
2. They say it makes no sense that somebody killed Abbie, then waited around an hour and half without being seen. Actually that sounds exactly like what a killer would do, if it were NOT Lizzie. You sneak into the house, you're hiding in the spare bedroom, you're discovered by Abbie, you kill her and simply close the door. Then when Andrew gets home, you wait for people to leave the rooom, kill him, and leave.
Lizzie could have done it, but these two points of 'evidence' people throw out are hugely flawed. Bridget was in the house from 9 to 11:30 and never found Abbie, so why couldn't Lizzie have been in the house the same time and never found Abbie? If an outside intruder wanted to kill Andrew, he could have simply stayed in the spare bedroom with the body until Andrew got home.
Now you still have all the other problems of Lizzie's behavior, and the motive that she had, and nobody saw an intruder enter or leave, etc. but these two points everybody always brings up are complete fallacies.
I believe that Bridget got a payoff.
this is a good point... people assume it's lizzie in part because they think the killing of abby looks more 'violent and angry'. What if it was just more panicked? Killer was there to kill Andrew. Maybe he thought abby wouldn't be home that day, she finds him, he kills her, then hides and waits for his real target.
I have never believed Lizzie was guilty. It is refreshing to hear that someone else sees it that way.
I'm not too sure either !
Great speaker. Expect this man has passed, RIP.
Well done
Motivation
She more than likely did this with an iron. Wore a scruff over her head and face. Maybe, on her father's murder, Wore her father's coat over her body that was stuffed under his head.
Agree. What they described as 3 wounds on the back of Abbys head actually looks like a triangle in her autopsy photo ( Andrew's photo is too blurry to make out any details at all). The end of a flat iron is pointed & triangular. There were also 2 hooded, rubberised, full length womens raincoats in the home. They were wipe clean. Perfect cover up. They were called rain gossamers. The bloody rags in the cellar bucket werent menstrual as she claimed, they were clean up of blood etc.
She did do it
It is pretty obvious that this was a murder suicide. Andrew killed his wife, left the home and returned. He felt guilt and killed himself when Lizzy left the room. Mystery solved. You're welcome.
Andrew was not home when Abby died. No one kills themself by whacking their face in with a hatchet.
@@highcountrydelatite There’s no proof. Lizzie was acquitted in under two hours.
Abby was killed about 90 minutes before Andrew. Andrew was not yet home. Ergo, Andrew did not kill Abby.
Wish it was that cut and dried! 😂
Yes, she did it,,,,
This is nonsense she did it just another author trying to get attention for his book
I think he made some valid points.
No murder weapon was ever found despite numerous searches. No bloody clothing was found. There was no blood on Lizzie’s body. Bathing was difficult as there was no shower or tub. The only running water was in the kitchen and the barn. Lizzie was acquitted in an hour. Countless mock trials have also acquitted her.
This man has no idea what he's talking about