The Impossible Timeline: Why Lizzie Borden Couldn't Have Committed the Murders

Physical evidence, Victorian clothing, and human physiology prove what investigators missed 130 years ago

August 4th, 1892, 11:10 AM. Lizzie Borden discovers her father's brutally murdered body. Blood everywhere. Ten savage hatchet wounds. And yet, she's completely clean—not a single drop of blood on her dress.

Last week, we destroyed the myths that have surrounded this case for over a century. Today, I'm going to prove to you that it was physically impossible for Lizzie Borden to have committed these murders. When you examine what it would have required for Lizzie to kill both victims, clean up, and appear innocent, it's not just unlikely—it's physiologically and practically impossible.

As a nurse with decades of medical experience, I understand both trauma responses and the physical realities of violent encounters. Combined with my research into Victorian society and clothing, the evidence is overwhelming: the prosecution's timeline doesn't just fail to make sense—it defies the laws of physics, human physiology, and the practical realities of 1890s fashion.

I'm going to walk you through this minute by minute to show you why the human body and Victorian society made this crime impossible for Lizzie to commit. The math doesn't work. The timeline doesn't work. And this evidence alone should have cleared Lizzie's name 130 years ago.

The Andrew Borden Murder: A Timeline That Defies Reality

Let's start with what we know for certain about Andrew Borden's murder, working backward from the discovery of his body.

At approximately 11:10 AM, Lizzie called for Bridget Sullivan, the family maid, to come downstairs because she had discovered Andrew's body. We know this timing because Bridget had gone upstairs somewhere between 10:55 and 10:58 AM, giving us a precise window for when the murder occurred and when Lizzie could have committed it.

Andrew had been struck ten times in the head with a hatchet. The attack was brutal, conducted at close quarters, and extremely bloody. His clothes were soaked with blood, as was the sofa where he lay, and blood spatter marked the walls. This was not a clean, surgical killing—it was a savage, messy attack that would have covered the perpetrator in blood.

Here's the crucial detail that should have ended this case immediately: when police arrived just minutes after the body's discovery, Lizzie was spotless. Clean dress, clean hands, clean face. Not a single drop of blood could be found on her person or clothing.

The prosecution's explanation for this glaring inconsistency was that Lizzie had cleaned up and changed clothes within those few minutes between the murder and the discovery. They even suggested she might have committed the crime while nude to avoid getting blood on her clothing.

As someone who understands both trauma response and Victorian society, I can tell you this explanation is not just unlikely—it's impossible.

The Victorian Dress Challenge: Why 15 Minutes Wasn't Enough

To understand why the prosecution's timeline is impossible, we need to understand what getting dressed meant for a Victorian woman in 1892. This isn't a matter of throwing on modern clothes, no matter how complicated they might be.

When you got dressed this morning, how long did it take? Five minutes? Maybe ten if you were putting on pantyhose and complicated shoes? That's what we deal with in 2024. But in 1892, Victorian fashion demanded at least eleven layers of clothing.

Let me walk you through what Lizzie would have been wearing: chemise, drawers, stockings, corset, corset cover, bustle pad, first petticoat, second petticoat (sometimes a third), the dress itself, collar, and cuffs. This doesn't even count the stockings and shoes that had to be put on before the corset, because once that corset was laced up, you couldn't bend over.

The corset alone took 15 to 20 minutes just to lace up properly. This process, even with help, took about 30 to 40 minutes minimum. But if you were doing it yourself, as Lizzie did—she didn't have a personal maid helping her dress—it would take even longer.

I understand it was summertime, but Victorian women still wore these layers. They might leave off one layer of petticoats, but the overall silhouette and propriety were crucial. If Lizzie had left off significant layers, other women would have immediately noticed the strangeness of her appearance.

Now, remember our timeline: Bridget went upstairs at 10:55 AM, and Lizzie discovered the body at 11:10 AM. That's exactly 15 minutes. If there had been even one woman allowed at the inquest or grand jury, she would have immediately said, "You can't get dressed in 15 minutes. You can't get undressed and redressed. You can't even accomplish one of those tasks, let alone commit a murder in between."

The Impossible Sequence of Events

Let's break down what the prosecution claimed Lizzie accomplished in those 15 minutes:

First, she would have had to remove all her clothes, which would take 15 to 20 minutes alone, especially if she was covered in blood and trying to avoid spreading it further. The prosecution suggested she might have been nude when she committed the crime, but this creates an even bigger problem: Lizzie had just spoken with her father and been seen by Bridget at 10:55 AM. The idea that she was walking around nude in a Victorian household, where her father and the maid could see her, is absurd. Both Andrew and Bridget would have had fainting spells at such impropriety.

Second, after committing the murder, she would have had to hide the weapon somewhere it couldn't be found—a task that was never successfully accomplished, as no murder weapon was ever definitively identified.

Third, she would have had to wash her entire body, scrubbing blood from underneath her fingernails and washing it out of her hair. This alone would take 10 to 15 minutes, and remember, she couldn't do this out in the open where she might be seen.

Fourth, she would have had to dispose of all her bloody clothes somewhere they could never be found. Despite extensive searches, no bloody clothing was ever discovered.

Finally, she would have had to get dressed again in those eleven layers of Victorian clothing, a process that normally took 30 to 40 minutes even with help.

The total time required for this sequence: 40 to 55 minutes minimum. The time available: 15 minutes maximum. The math simply doesn't work. Killing Andrew Borden wasn't just unlikely for Lizzie—it was mathematically impossible.

The Abby Borden Murder: A Different Timeline, Same Problems

Now let's examine the murder of Abby Borden, which occurred earlier that morning. The timeline here is less precise but creates its own set of impossible circumstances.

We know that Lizzie came downstairs for breakfast a little before 9 AM. Abby went upstairs to make the bed that John Morse had slept in, but she came back down saying she only had to put on the pillow shams and lock the room because she was expecting guests in a few days.

Somewhere between 9 and 9:30 AM, Abby went back upstairs to the guest room to finish her tasks. For our analysis, let's place the murder at approximately 9:20 AM. Bridget was in and out of the house during this time and spoke with Lizzie periodically, which cuts down the available time window.

In this scenario, Lizzie did have more time to commit Abby's murder, even accounting for Victorian dress complications. But here's something I've never heard anyone discuss, something my nursing background makes crystal clear: the physiological impossibility of what the prosecution claimed.

The Adrenaline Response: What Medical Science Tells Us

Understanding what happens to the human body during and after violent encounters is crucial to evaluating the prosecution's timeline. In my book, I go much deeper into the medical studies and research that support this analysis, but let me encapsulate the key points here.

If Lizzie had bludgeoned Abby to death at 9:20 AM, her heart rate would have skyrocketed to somewhere between 150 and 180 beats per minute. Her hands would be shaking, she would be sweating profusely, and her pupils would be dilated as she entered a state of extreme physical arousal. This is basic human physiology—the fight-or-flight response that occurs during life-threatening or violent situations.

This adrenaline response isn't something you can flip on and off like a switch. After the initial encounter, there's an adrenaline crash that typically occurs about 100 minutes after the adrenaline rush, though this varies somewhat between individuals. Even during the immediate aftermath, while trying to wash herself, redress, and hide evidence, Lizzie would likely have been exhausted, nauseated, shaky, and physically and emotionally drained.

Yet when everyone saw her—Bridget, her father, neighbors—she was calm and composed. Bridget Sullivan specifically testified that Lizzie acted completely normal and there was nothing suspicious about her behavior. The prosecution would have us believe that despite the undressing, murder, cleanup, weapon disposal, redressing, adrenaline response, and adrenaline crash, Lizzie was able to appear perfectly normal.

But here's the even bigger problem: if Lizzie had killed Abby around 9:20 AM and experienced this massive physiological response, she would have had to go through the entire cycle again to kill Andrew at 11 AM. As soon as she finished cycling through the crash from the first murder, she would have had to generate another adrenaline rush for the second killing. The human body simply doesn't work that way.

The prosecution's timeline requires Lizzie to commit a brutal murder, experience a massive adrenaline response, calmly go about her day for over an hour while cycling through the physiological aftermath, then commit a second murder and within 15 minutes clean up, change clothes, and appear calm when police arrived. It's not just unlikely—it's physiologically impossible.

The Note That Wasn't There: Behavioral Evidence of Innocence

There's another crucial piece of evidence that demonstrates Lizzie's innocence: her behavior regarding Abby's whereabouts.

If Lizzie had killed Abby around 9:20 AM, she would obviously have known that Abby was dead. Yet when police arrived and asked about Abby, Lizzie said she thought her stepmother had gone out because she had received a note. This has been a point of controversy—where was this note?

The answer is simple and reveals how little people understand about 1890s household practices. Abby probably did burn the note if she received one. Trash cans as we know them today weren't common. The stove was always going, and when you had paper or something burnable, that's where it went. Dr. Bowen also burned a note in the same stove that day—it was simply what people did with paper they no longer needed. They didn't have trash collection, plastic bags, or modern waste disposal. Most household waste was organic and was burned because it was natural and easy to dispose of in the stove.

But here's the crucial point: Lizzie's first response was to tell police that Abby had gone out, but she thought she heard her come back. She said this several times: "Somebody go check for Mrs. Borden because I thought I heard her come in."

If Lizzie were the perpetrator, why would she send police upstairs to look for Abby when she knew Abby was already dead? Why would she volunteer information that would lead to the discovery of the second victim and make her appear even more suspicious? This behavior is completely inconsistent with guilt. It's the behavior of someone who genuinely did not know that Abby was dead upstairs.

The Clothing Challenge: Victorian Fashion as Alibi

Let's return to the practical impossibilities created by Victorian clothing, because this evidence alone should have cleared Lizzie's name.

Victorian women didn't have zippers—everything was fastened with tiny hooks, buttons, or laces like the corset. If you've ever tried to put on a corset, even in modern times for a costume or historical reenactment, you know that lacing it properly is no easy task. It requires time, patience, and often assistance.

The prosecution's timeline requires Lizzie to accomplish in 15 minutes what normally took 30 to 40 minutes with help. She would have had to undress completely, wash thoroughly, dispose of bloody clothing, and redress in eleven layers of complicated Victorian garments—all while maintaining the composure to appear normal when police arrived.

The physical impossibility of this timeline becomes even more apparent when you consider that Victorian clothing was designed for modesty and propriety, not quick changes. The multiple layers, complex fastenings, and structured undergarments were meant to create a specific silhouette and maintain social standards. The idea that someone could quickly strip out of and back into such clothing while committing and cleaning up after a brutal double murder is absurd.

The Medical Evidence: What Blood Spatter Tells Us

From a medical perspective, the blood evidence at the scene tells its own story. Andrew Borden's murder was conducted at close quarters with a hatchet—one of the messiest possible ways to kill someone. The blood spatter on the walls, the soaked clothing, and the blood-drenched sofa all indicate that the killer would have been covered in blood.

In my nursing experience, I've seen the aftermath of traumatic injuries, and I can tell you that this type of close-quarters violence with a bladed weapon creates extensive blood spatter. The killer would have had blood on their hands, arms, face, and clothing. The idea that someone could commit this crime and then clean themselves so thoroughly that no trace of blood remained—all within 15 minutes—is medically implausible.

The prosecution suggested Lizzie might have committed the crime nude, but this creates more problems than it solves. Blood would still have gotten in her hair, under her fingernails, and on her skin. Washing thoroughly enough to remove all traces would take significant time, and she would have had to do this without being seen by other household members.

The Psychological Impossibility

Beyond the physical and physiological impossibilities, there's also the psychological implausibility of the prosecution's scenario. They want us to believe that Lizzie, a Sunday school teacher with no history of violence, suddenly decided to commit not one but two brutal murders, then calmly went about her day as if nothing had happened.

The prosecution's timeline requires Lizzie to be simultaneously calculating enough to plan and execute a double murder while being careless enough to leave herself only 15 minutes for cleanup after the second killing. It requires her to be cold-blooded enough to bludgeon two people to death while being composed enough to fool everyone around her about her emotional state.

This psychological profile is internally contradictory. Someone capable of such brutal violence would likely show signs of the psychological stress, especially given the adrenaline response and crash cycle. The calm, composed Lizzie that witnesses described is inconsistent with someone who had just committed two savage murders.

The Real Killer: Someone Else Had Opportunity

The impossibility of the prosecution's timeline leads us to an inescapable conclusion: someone else committed these murders. Someone who had the opportunity, motive, and means. Someone who could kill both victims and escape without needing an impossible cleanup and costume change.

This person would have had to be someone with access to the house, knowledge of the family's routines, and the physical capability to commit the crimes. They would have needed time to clean up and dispose of evidence without the constraints that bound Lizzie. Most importantly, they would have needed a way to leave the scene without being seen by neighbors or passersby.

The evidence points to someone who was familiar with the household, who knew when family members would be alone, and who had a reason to want both Andrew and Abby dead. This wasn't a random crime or a crime of passion—it was planned and executed by someone who understood the family's patterns and vulnerabilities.

The Overlooked Evidence: What Investigators Missed

In examining this case with fresh eyes and medical knowledge, it becomes clear that investigators missed crucial evidence that would have pointed them toward the real killer. They were so focused on building a case against Lizzie that they ignored physical impossibilities and physiological realities.

The timeline evidence alone should have eliminated Lizzie as a suspect. No competent investigation should have proceeded with a theory that required the suspect to accomplish physically impossible tasks in an impossibly short timeframe. The fact that this evidence was overlooked or dismissed reveals the fundamental flaws in the investigation.

Moreover, the investigators' failure to understand Victorian clothing and social customs led them to propose scenarios that were not just unlikely but impossible given the social and practical realities of the time. A proper investigation would have consulted with women familiar with Victorian dress to understand the time requirements for changing clothes.

The Medical Testimony That Never Came

One of the most glaring omissions in the Lizzie Borden case was the lack of medical testimony about adrenaline response and the physiological effects of violent encounters. While medical knowledge in 1892 was less advanced than today, the basic understanding of how the human body responds to extreme stress was available.

A competent medical expert could have testified about the impossibility of committing such violent acts and then appearing calm and composed within minutes. The prosecution's timeline required Lizzie to override basic human physiology—something that should have been challenged by the defense.

The absence of this medical perspective allowed the prosecution to present a timeline that seemed plausible to jurors unfamiliar with the realities of trauma response. If the jury had understood the physiological impossibilities involved, they would have been forced to look elsewhere for the real killer.

The Conclusion: Justice Denied by Impossible Timelines

The evidence is overwhelming: Lizzie Borden could not have committed these murders. The timeline doesn't work. The clothing requirements make it impossible. The physiological responses make it implausible. The behavioral evidence contradicts guilt.

Yet for 130 years, we've accepted a narrative that defies physics, physiology, and common sense. We've allowed myths and prosecutorial theories to override clear evidence of innocence. We've ignored the mathematical impossibilities in favor of a compelling story.

The real tragedy of the Lizzie Borden case isn't just that an innocent woman was put on trial for murder—it's that the real killer escaped justice while investigators pursued an impossible theory. Someone got away with double murder because the investigation was so focused on making the evidence fit their predetermined conclusion that they ignored the evidence that would have led them to the truth.

The impossible timeline proves Lizzie's innocence beyond any reasonable doubt. The question now becomes: if Lizzie didn't commit these murders, who did? The answer lies in the evidence that investigators overlooked, the testimony they ignored, and the alibis they failed to properly examine.

In our next investigation, we'll explore the mysterious 9 AM visitor to the Borden house—someone who had the perfect opportunity to commit these murders or collaborate with the real killer. This is testimony that should have solved the case 130 years ago, but it was overlooked by investigators who had already decided on their suspect.

The truth about the Borden murders has been hiding in plain sight for over a century. It's time to finally examine the evidence without the bias that has clouded this case for so long. It's time to give Lizzie Borden the fair investigation she never received and identify the real killer who escaped justice.

The impossible timeline proves Lizzie's innocence. Now let's find out who really committed these crimes.

This analysis is based on extensive research into Victorian society, medical understanding of trauma response, and careful examination of the trial transcripts and police records. For a complete analysis of the adrenaline response and detailed medical evidence, see "Lizzie Borden: The Lies Behind the Legend," which provides in-depth documentation of the physiological impossibilities in the prosecution's case.

To get your copy, follow this link: