Who was 2nd Ax Murderer in the town?

There was a 2nd axeman? must have been on the grassy knoll!? 

---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.

There was actually an eye witness (a farmer I think) who saw a man, dressed in black, with blood on him, who was raving about having to kill a married couple, about the time of day that Elizabeth Borden's parents were murdered.

And, the weapon itself, was found on the roof of a nearby home.

I suspect it's the same man.

Here's a link; http://www.amazon.com/Lizzie-Didnt-Do-It-Volume/dp/0828320527/ref=cm_c r_pr_pb_t

I've been wondering this as well. I think the movie wants you to believe she did it, but I think it leaves enough reasonable doubt that it could have been someone else. For instance, her dreams came about after she started taking the drugs, so they could have been just that: dreams. Or maybe if she at some point fantasized about killing them, it could've all melded together between what she saw of Andrew's corpse, the accusations, the trial, and maybe she even came to believe she did it culminating in that scene with her sister (where we still don't hear her confess, but since her sister leaves, it seems to be what we're supposed to assume she does).

Of course, the sequel miniseries is probably going to shoot any ambiguity of the movie to shreds, but that was one of the possible scenarios I got from it. The fact that there was a second axe murderer just reinforced the idea that possibly she didn't do it. (The movie version, that is. I still haven't formulated an opinion on the real Lizzie Borden's guilt or innocence.) Or the second murder was a copycat or deranged enough to take inspiration from the most recent murders in town. It was really weird that they never followed up on that or at the very least had Lizzie's attorney bring it up at trial. I know the judge said they wouldn't stop proceedings to investigate, but he didn't say anything about barring the ability to bring it up and raise reasonable doubt.

{Look at me and mah clevah nicksies.}

I am watching this no and saw the scene where what aappears to be a man, murders a woman. It confused me a bit. I think the woman thought she heard something and looked up and called out what i thought was a womans name. I couldn't make out the name.
Does anybody know if that was the only other murder that took place that was similiar to this? I think that scene was the only one in the movie that indicated there was a posssibility of another murderer.
~~~~~~~~~~
6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy

This film, if not all of them on the Bordens, are wonderful stories of conjecture. That is why they are called historical fiction and not historical recounting; plays grounded in history but otherwise left to creative grant. The screenwriter and the director appear to have the same issues with the entire situation as you do. So, they took the story to its mythical roots (Lizzie murdering Mr. and Abby Morse Borden (aka:Abby Durfee Gray Borden ((Morse is the family name of the late Mrs. Borden Lizzie's mother0) and included the time to throw in all that superfluous information MerovingianGoddess mentioned.

So I’d have to agree with blueghost if you’re getting your history knowledge from cinematic plays based entirely on distortions of history and creative myth building. There were a lot of details apparently, that were missed initially in 1892, and because of that, much of the case was open to speculation. And yes, one of those details was similar murders occurring in the city in like manner. This is probably why she was acquitted which was what the film’s judge said, the system would run its course and if reasonable doubt, etc., etc. And her lawyer was quite capable as he had already gotten Lizzie’s father’s company off serious legal issues before this trial. So the film mentions the three men, the guy she copulates with, as well as the two men who Mr. Borden charges “never to come to his house again” who refer to the primitive union that was forming inside Mr. Borden's company, and who in history were known for violent work riots in later years. The film also leaves out serious details, like the fact that the late Mrs Borden the first's brother, the girls’ maternal uncle, and the widowed Mr. Borden’s brother-in-law had visited and spent the night the night before. That was why the sheets in the guest bedroom were being changed in the first place, and again the film displayed, though not why, so the viewer assumes she was just making her own bed.

Mostly though, the very primitive manner of what now amounts to cliché – Criminal Investigative Specialists – is the cause of why no one will really know what happened and the director displayed that part too. Seriously 1892; the world was still firmly gripped in the dark ages with minutia of society like the Bordens on the cutting edge of industry (his business had been sued already and had won ((which the director displays this too) and his family tagged along). Rudolf Diesel is barely applying for a patent early that spring for his engine and the University of Chicago held its first class for reference. In real life Borden was an industrialist, who actually still has an office building credited to his development in existence in Fall River today. When he died, Mr. Borden was a millionaire in an age when Fall River was a very big city on a very busy shipping and sailing bay. Which make the entire Bay area an internationally transient region.

So there is a huge part of the story that doesn’t fit inside a film, let alone this film, and is part of the Borden lore and conspiracy, and this film is just another addition to that body of fiction from August 4th, 1892 in Fall River. You should research it its all available in bits through the web.

Though I'm inclined to agree that someone other than the Borden girls committed the murders, and I think the film's writers and directors felt the same by including these details which we're now talking about, but went with the myth anyway.