Lizzie Borden took an axe--or did she?

[RavenDarkendale]

I am sure that this case has been discussed before, but I have just began to do any serious research.

I just finished Lizzie: The Story of Lizzie Borden by Frank Spierling. He makes a good case for the murderer to be Lizzie's siter Emma, who was supposed to be visiting out of town. In this book Lizzie is only guilty of knowing who the murderer was and being there at the time of the murders.

Evidence against Lizzie was poor at best. No one had seen her with a single spot of blood on her, even though her father's body was still dripping. There was a tiny pinprick of blood on an old skirt, but she hadn't worn it that day. She had tried to buy Prussic Acid the day before, but this is the weapon of a poisoner, not an axe murderess.

Lizzie was questioned at the inquest by the judge and prosecutor, but despite asking for her lawyer, the defense wasn't allowed into the room. Lizzie had burned a dress, but two people testified that it had pint on it as she claimed, and another that there was no blood on the dress, which she claimed she told Lizzie not to burn, The murder weapon wasn't found. The headless hatchet did not fit the wounds, and the prosecution's star police experts contradicted their boss's story about how, when, and where it was found. A lot of the evidence produced was along the lines of "this must be what happened."

The instructions to the jury were to bring a verdict of capital murder and seen Lizzie to the new electric chair or to find her not guilty. They were not allowed to consider lesser charges such as conspiracy, knowledge of the crime and criminal, intent to poison or anything else. Black and white, in or out, death or set free.

Facts in the case:

Mrs. Borden was killed n hour or so BEFORE her husband.
No one was seen entering or exiting the house.
Blood spatter indicated that the murderer would be covered in blood, but Lizzie wasn't.
The only running water was in the kitchen and in the basement.
Lizzie did lie about being in the barn. She was protecting someone or trying to distance herself from the house.
The murder weapon was nowhere in the house, no blood found on any of Lizzie's clothing/
The police took the house apart searching.
Lizzie and Emma stood to inherit half a million dollars (Worth over 12 million in today's money.)
There had been an argument over money and houses.
Lizzie and especially Emma hated Mrs. Borden.

[sdreid]

My own feeling is that Lizzie did it and, if she didn't, Bridgette is next on my suspect list. There must be about half a dozen named suspects if not more as well as some "unknown local" type generic ones.

I had heard the name Lizzie Borden in my early life and knew it involved murder but the first account of the case I saw was a TV program I watched in 1961 when I was 15 and discussing it in English class the next day. My teacher, Mr. Earl A. Smith, and I had a bit of a disagreement - he thought Lizzie was innocent and I wasn't so sure. The program was an episode of Armstrong Circle Theater entitled Legend of Murder: The Untold Story of Lizzie Border. Although not making a direct accusation, the presentation leaned pretty strongly to the side that Bridgette Sullivan did it. I guess I've officially been arguing about the case for 52 years now. Back then, I didn't know who any of the suspects in the JtR Case were.

[Wickerman]

Is this the same Frank Spiering responsible for that abominable rendition, Prince Jack?

Buyer beware...

[sdreid]

Regarding Armstrong Circle Theater, as I recall, it alternated weekly with United States Steel Hour which was a teleplay drama series. The Borden production was 60 minutes, obviously, and told the story of the murders, if I'm remembering correctly, in a reenactment style with commentary in a style similar to Unsolved Mysteries.

[Hatchett]

I have seen a number of programmes or films on Lizzie Borden, and read a number of books.

In the early days, I really wanted to believe that Lizzie was innocent. But I think now that that was more to do with my anti establishment attitude in those days.

Now, although I am still a little uneasy with it, I think Lizzie was probably guilty. Or at least the best case can be made against her.

Best wishes.

[RivkahChaya]

He makes a good case for the murderer to be Lizzie's siter Emma, who was supposed to be visiting out of town. In this book Lizzie is only guilty of knowing who the murderer was and being there at the time of the murders.

I haven't read this particular book, but there were plenty of people to testify that Emma was in another town entirely the day the murders took place, and there seems to be no good reason to question their reliability, other then to try to get Lizzie off the hook.

Evidence against Lizzie was poor at best.

There was one piece of circumstantial evidence, which was equally good for both sisters, although, Emma's alibi (literal, in this case) was pretty solid. The rules of inheritance were such that if Andrew Borden died while Abby was still alive, she would inherit everything, other than a few things he willed specifically to his daughters, and a small annuity, which the law provided for, for unwed daughters whose fathers died after they had married second wives. The law was specifically to prevent the daughters from becoming destitute, but not to maintain them in the manner to which they were accustomed.

So, if Andrew, who was getting on, and who was significantly older than Abby, died first, Lizzie and Emma would lose out. After Abby died, even if she died childless, her nearest blood relative would get anything she had inherited from Andrew, unless she had a will leaving things to her step-daughters. At one time, she got along reasonably well with Lizzie and Emma, and they may have expected she would take care of them, but they had had a recent, serious falling out, and at that point could probably be expected to be turned out of the house upon Andrew's death.

Now, if Abby died, and then Andrew, when Andrew did die, the sisters would get everything. Andrew would inherit from Abby, except for any family heirloom jewelry that might be returned to her blood relatives.

Forensics being what they were, just about the only way to be certain that Abby died first, when they died more or less at the same time, the way they did, was to find Andrew's body immediately, still warm and bleeding, while Abby was cold, with the blood clotted.

Killing just Abby, and not Andrew, when the intent was to get his money, left open the possibility that he would marry yet again.

She had tried to buy Prussic Acid the day before, but this is the weapon of a poisoner, not an axe murderess.

If we are talking about a serial murderer, thrill killer type, yes, but if we are talking about someone whose goal is inheritance, and is just looking for expediency, it makes sense that she might try something neat, like poison, but that having failed, move on to an axe (or, hatchet).

Lizzie was questioned at the inquest by the judge and prosecutor, but despite asking for her lawyer, the defense wasn't allowed into the room.

This was long before the Miranda ruling. Lizzie did not have the right to have counsel present during questioning.

The instructions to the jury were to bring a verdict of capital murder and seen Lizzie to the new electric chair or to find her not guilty. They were not allowed to consider lesser charges such as conspiracy, knowledge of the crime and criminal, intent to poison or anything else. Black and white, in or out, death or set free.

Actually, the judge decided the sentence, although death was pretty usual, and in this case, I don't know that Mass. had a facility to imprison a relatively young (IIRC, 32 years old) woman for the rest of her life, or for something like a 50 year sentence. That made execution the only realistic option, unless the state was prepared to build a new prison facility for this one prisoner.

However, historically, juries have been very reluctant to convict women on capital charges, and send them to death. That really didn't change until the 1970s.

Mrs. Borden was killed n hour or so BEFORE her husband.
No one was seen entering or exiting the house.

These two things are actually pretty good evidence that it was, in fact, Lizzie.

Blood spatter indicated that the murderer would be covered in blood, but Lizzie wasn't.

Not by the time she alerted the maid to Andrew's death, no, but that could just mean she was a careful planner.

The only running water was in the kitchen and in the basement.

Again, good planning.

[Jonathan H]

Of course Lizzie Borden did it, as she had the motive, the means and the opportunity and her 'alibi' was weak--and she was decidedly unconvincing at the initial inquiry.

But there were larger historical forces at play which got her off: eg. she was an upper class white woman (eg. she could be the all male jury's wife, sister or mother?!?)

With access to the money Borden hired an excellent defense team (inluding an ex-governor); who kept her incriminating testimony out, muddied the pool with wisps about an intruder, and played the sentimental card for all it was worth about a poor, Christian woman. Plus she had a judge who practically directed the jury to an acquittal, and the only option was the distasteful death penalty--for a woman.

And another axe murder by person, or persons, unknown was committed on the first day of her trial.

During proceedings she won most of the support of the press and the public, which also helped.

Yet comparable to OJ, who also got off due to issues larger than himself and that swamped just as much of an open-and-shut case, once Lizzie Borden had triumphed she was forever shunned by the same respectable society who could not believe, or did not want to officially acknowledge, that one of their own could be capable of such heinous crimes.

[RavenDarkendale]

The point of contention about Lizzie always will have to be that if she was guilty, how did she get rid of the murder weapon, clean off the blood, and have none on her, testimony from a number of witnesses. that even her hair wasn't out of place.

She called "Maggie" down from her room upon "discovery" of her father's body and sent her to get neighbors and the Doctor. No blood found, even though Andrews was reported as still dripping. With the placement of the only running water in the house, she would have had to move incredibly fast, and yet not a drop of blood leading to either water tap.

One point from this book that could explain how Lizzie did the crime (if she did) was that the sisters had waterproof wraps, which were not found by the police, even though Emma told them that they owned the items. The wraps could of been used for protection from blood, and then burned in the fireplace.

I have no real opinion as to who was guilty. But if Lizzie wasn't guilty, she knew who was, Anything eles is impossible. And eliminating the impossible, that how it has to be.

Is this the same Frank Spiering responsible for that abominable rendition, Prince Jack?

Buyer beware...

Yes. I have it too, and "Prince Jack" is a real stinker, let me tell you. If I had realized this guy was the same person that wrote "Prince Jack" I would have probably passed on this book!

I also found it interesting that in this book on Lizzie, he conveniently gets most of his information from a book, The Fall River Tragedy, Edwin H Porter, 1893, and then proceeds to inform us that only four copies are know to exist.

He then says that the one in the Library of Congress is missing, one is in the State House in Boston, one is owned by the Fall River Historical Society, and he has the last one personally.

Maybe. They sell reprints. I have one ordered from alibris.com that cost $13.92 postpaid. It will be interesting to see if his reports are accurate, since he believed he had a unique advantage!

[sdreid]

I agree that Lizzie was probably in on it if she didn't do it but I couldn't say positively so. Excluding the accusation, everything certainly worked out to her advantage.

[Jonathan H]

No, not everything worked out to her advantage if she hoped to be welcomed back into the WASP society that had initially supported her, acquitted her--and then turned their backs on her.

Lizzie Borden may have done the murders naked.

There is a superb TV movie on this case, from 1975, starring Elizabeth Montgomery.

[RavenDarkendale]

That was partially the basis this guy used to try to pin it on Emma. No blood on either Bridgett (Maggie) or Lizzie, who were the only ones known to be in the house. Why then did Lizzie blatantly lie about where she was? Obviously, she wasn't in that barn. But with no murder weapon found, and no blood other than the crime scenes, there wasn't much evidence to point to either woman. The lying and contradictory testimony she gave placed the spotlight on her for the blame.

But if someone else was in that house possibly Emma sneaking back home for the purpose of the murders, then Lizzie's story makes sense. She was afraid someone saw Emma enter, so she claimed to have gone out to the barn. She sent Maggie immediately for outside help after her father's murder, which gave time for Emma or whomever to escape, and take the murder weapon with them.

She took the fall knowing that they didn't have enough to convict her. That way, suspicion fell on no one else. The prosecutors wore themselves out trying to convict her, and when that failed, they were certain justice miscarried and looked to no other suspects.

Lizzie would have to have an iron resolve. In those times, no bail was allowed on murder charges, so she would have to spend time in jail. During the trial she had to face such things as her father's actual skull being placed into evidence. She had to remain silent at ll costs. Once acquitted, she knew she would never be tried for the charge again. The plan worked just fine. Yes, I do believe the murders were planned and planned carefully. Even the poison comedy was part of the game. Focus on Lizzie, then they won't look too carefully at anyone else.

And that, friends, is par for the course in most unsolved cases. The focus is on one suspect and if that falls through, no effort is made to find anyone else.

Sometime after her acquittal, when she was vilified by the whole town, Lizzie came up on shoplifting charges. The powers that be thought this would be a way to make her confess to the murders. It didn't work out so well. She signed their paper with a postscript that said she was forced to sign to a lie, and walked out. Cool customer, that one.

[Jonathan H]

There is no evidence that the older sister committed the crimes, nor that she was ever suspected of such a terrible thing at the time (she was not there, Lizzie was).

Do you find you have a need to get Lizzie Borden off the hook?

The real message of her case is that guilty people can get off, even when there is no plausible alternate theory of the crime.

[RavenDarkendale]

Do you find you have a need to get Lizzie Borden off the hook?

Short answer: NO

The evidence against Lizzie just wasn't there. I do think she knew what happened that day, that the murders couldn't have taken place without her knowing full well who committed them.

I'm not certain she was guilty, blood is hard to get rid off, and if she cleaned up at either water tap she would have left traces. Somehow the murder weapon and the bloody clothes got out of that house. and Lizzie stayed. The maid was sent for help and could have dumped the evidence, I suppose.

[Jonathan H]

I think the short-answer is yes.

On the other hand, Lizzie Borden was acquitted by a jury.

Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was framed? He never received a trial, of course, and yet was posthumously found guilty by the FBI and the Warren Commission.

[Brenda]

.

To RavenDarkendale:

I highly recommend a book if you can find it, it's fairly rare. It's called "A Private Disgrace: Lizzie Borden by Daylight" by Victoria Lincoln, copyright 1967. I believe this is one of the best books on the subject and all sources used are contemporary. It was recommended to me by a "Lizzieologist"....I just made that word up.

If there was ever a case that has been more convoluted and stretched out of proportion than the JTR case, it's the Lizzie Borden case. Beware of what books you choose to read.

Let me know if you can't find a copy of the book, I'll mail you mine to read. It's in decently good shape but yellowing as you would expect a book from the 60's to be.