Lizzie Borden took an axe--or did she?

[Pcdunn]

Does anyone believe the more modern theory that there had been sexual abuse and/or incest going on in the Borden household prior to the murders?

[Errata]

Does anyone believe the more modern theory that there had been sexual abuse and/or incest going on in the Borden household prior to the murders?

I think it was absolutely an abusive environment, though I would be surprised if actual hands were laid on Lizzie, Emma's behavior fits a victim of that kind of thing better. Not that hands needed to be laid on her either for that mentality to happen. There's a very complex dynamic that can grow out of a beloved and "victimized" father with an "evil" stepmother that creates very strong unhealthy attachments similar to what is seen in incest. As soon as either of the girls felt that it was their job to take care of and protect their father rather than vice versa, that behavior pattern would be locked. It's an incestuous mindset without sexual abuse ever taking place. Feeling protective of and resentful of the same person for the same thing, feeling unappreciated, feeling trapped, feeling like you can't move on without that person's permission... it's a whole thing.

And Abby would not have been able to help the dynamic at all. She likely was loved and appreciated by the girls when they were little, at least by Lizzie who had not really been old enough to know her mother well. But Abby never had any children of her own, and given her age when she married it was likely there was no expectation she would have a child. Her husband wanted a housekeeper and a mother for his kids. If she had a child, this probably never would have happened. But her marriage was kind of a sham, and her needs weren't being met (though at the time that was pretty common) so she needed some kind of recognition from her husband. I think she legitimately got greedy, because money was the one thing her husband was willing to give her. In tiny measured droplets to guarantee that she would always remain wanting, and therefor, present. Abby could not have left, but she could have stopped doing her job. That's what Andrew was buying. Her continued service. She wasn't that much younger than him. There was no reason for her to expect to survive him by any amount of time. His fortune would be useless to her by the time she got it. Assuming she got it since he kept dangling wills over everyone's head.

People tend to have more sympathy for Andrew than for Abby. I think that is a mistake. I think Andrew was the architect of this. He set the scene, he created the characters, and I think he thought it would play out on his deathbed, but he miscalculated dreadfully.

[Pcdunn]

I think it was absolutely an abusive environment, though I would be surprised if actual hands were laid on Lizzie, Emma's behavior fits a victim of that kind of thing better. Not that hands needed to be laid on her either for that mentality to happen. There's a very complex dynamic that can grow out of a beloved and "victimized" father with an "evil" stepmother that creates very strong unhealthy attachments similar to what is seen in incest. As soon as either of the girls felt that it was their job to take care of and protect their father rather than vice versa, that behavior pattern would be locked. It's an incestuous mindset without sexual abuse ever taking place. Feeling protective of and resentful of the same person for the same thing, feeling unappreciated, feeling trapped, feeling like you can't move on without that person's permission... it's a whole thing.

And Abby would not have been able to help the dynamic at all. She likely was loved and appreciated by the girls when they were little, at least by Lizzie who had not really been old enough to know her mother well. But Abby never had any children of her own, and given her age when she married it was likely there was no expectation she would have a child. Her husband wanted a housekeeper and a mother for his kids. If she had a child, this probably never would have happened. But her marriage was kind of a sham, and her needs weren't being met (though at the time that was pretty common) so she needed some kind of recognition from her husband. I think she legitimately got greedy, because money was the one thing her husband was willing to give her. In tiny measured droplets to guarantee that she would always remain wanting, and therefor, present. Abby could not have left, but she could have stopped doing her job. That's what Andrew was buying. Her continued service. She wasn't that much younger than him. There was no reason for her to expect to survive him by any amount of time. His fortune would be useless to her by the time she got it. Assuming she got it since he kept dangling wills over everyone's head.

People tend to have more sympathy for Andrew than for Abby. I think that is a mistake. I think Andrew was the architect of this. He set the scene, he created the characters, and I think he thought it would play out on his deathbed, but he miscalculated dreadfully.

Very interesting response, Errata-- as usual. Thank you.

[Vincenzo]

I think it was absolutely an abusive environment, though I would be surprised if actual hands were laid on Lizzie, Emma's behavior fits a victim of that kind of thing better. Not that hands needed to be laid on her either for that mentality to happen. There's a very complex dynamic that can grow out of a beloved and "victimized" father with an "evil" stepmother that creates very strong unhealthy attachments similar to what is seen in incest. As soon as either of the girls felt that it was their job to take care of and protect their father rather than vice versa, that behavior pattern would be locked. It's an incestuous mindset without sexual abuse ever taking place. Feeling protective of and resentful of the same person for the same thing, feeling unappreciated, feeling trapped, feeling like you can't move on without that person's permission... it's a whole thing.

And Abby would not have been able to help the dynamic at all. She likely was loved and appreciated by the girls when they were little, at least by Lizzie who had not really been old enough to know her mother well. But Abby never had any children of her own, and given her age when she married it was likely there was no expectation she would have a child. Her husband wanted a housekeeper and a mother for his kids. If she had a child, this probably never would have happened. But her marriage was kind of a sham, and her needs weren't being met (though at the time that was pretty common) so she needed some kind of recognition from her husband. I think she legitimately got greedy, because money was the one thing her husband was willing to give her. In tiny measured droplets to guarantee that she would always remain wanting, and therefor, present. Abby could not have left, but she could have stopped doing her job. That's what Andrew was buying. Her continued service. She wasn't that much younger than him. There was no reason for her to expect to survive him by any amount of time. His fortune would be useless to her by the time she got it. Assuming she got it since he kept dangling wills over everyone's head.

People tend to have more sympathy for Andrew than for Abby. I think that is a mistake. I think Andrew was the architect of this. He set the scene, he created the characters, and I think he thought it would play out on his deathbed, but he miscalculated dreadfully.

Good post.

[Pcdunn]

Destination America, a cable channel out here, is airing a documentary titled "Lizzie Borden Had an Axe" following two investigators looking at the evidence still existing from the murders of Mr and Mrs Borden. This is dated 2000, but is quite interesting. The pair consists of a forensic expert and a former homicide detective.

[Vincenzo]

I've seen that show before. It was pretty goodz

[RivkahChaya]

Does anyone believe the more modern theory that there had been sexual abuse and/or incest going on in the Borden household prior to the murders?

I don't.

I think it was absolutely an abusive environment, though I would be surprised if actual hands were laid on Lizzie....

This, I can believe.

-snip-

People tend to have more sympathy for Andrew than for Abby. I think that is a mistake. I think Andrew was the architect of this. He set the scene, he created the characters, and I think he thought it would play out on his deathbed, but he miscalculated dreadfully.

I agree with this sentiment, but I've personally never had much sympathy for Andrew.

However, I think a couple of other entities share a little blame. One is a society that didn't allow women to prepare to have independent lives-- if it had been acceptable to send Lizzie and Emma to college, where they could have prepared for careers, a falling out with their stepmother, on whose goodwill they were relying for continued support after their father died would not have made them suddenly desperate. The other is the inheritance laws that contributed to the same desperation.

But yeah, Andrew could have made a will that left his daughters annuities greater than what the law demanded (which was a pittance), and made it well-known, instead of being so secretive and quixotic, and it probably would have saved his life.

Like I said upthread (two years ago) I think Lizzie wanting to make sure that it was obvious Abby died first, so there were no questions about inheritance is the best explanation for the time gap between the murders. With Andrew still bleeding, and Abby cold, it was obvious what had happened. Therefore, Lizzie and her sister got everything, except a few personal items that went to Abby's family. In fact, I think it's the only explanation for something that is otherwise very strange.

[Pcdunn]

That's a great point, RivahChaya, about the order in which the Bordens died being a legal point when it came to inheritance. Very sensible.

I am dubious about the incest or sexual abuse, if only because of the time and place, and I think modern analysts do often apply modern psychology to past crimes.

[belinda]

Does anyone believe the more modern theory that there had been sexual abuse and/or incest going on in the Borden household prior to the murders?

Yes I believe Lizzie was a victim of incest probably of long duration

[belinda]

That's a great point, RivahChaya, about the order in which the Bordens died being a legal point when it came to inheritance. Very sensible.

I am dubious about the incest or sexual abuse, if only because of the time and place, and I think modern analysts do often apply modern psychology to past crimes.

Incest is thousands of years old and can happen in any time or place

[Rosella]

I'm a poster on the Lizzie Borden Forum and there have been some great arguments there about whether there was incest perpetrated or not. I'm a disbeliever. I think Andrew held enough power (financially and otherwise) in that household without needing to commit incest.

Hatred of Abby, fear of the inheritance going to Abby and her relatives and alarm at the proposed gift of a farm to her are enough to explain those murders, I believe. Of course, I believe Lizzie was the murderer, so I would think that, wouldn't I?

[Mayerling]

I tend to think the bulk of the public believes Lizzie was guilty of both killings, but that for certain social reasons of the 1890s, or even reasons involving the small social elite of Fall River, Mass., Lizzie got acquitted.

Edgar Lustgarten did a small radio talk on the Borden Case, and subsequently published it in his "The Murder and the Trial", and in the essay/talk he gave an example of how the defense counsel cross-examined a witness and managed to defuse the latter's testimony about the atmosphere within the household, adding at the end it is a small masterpiece of cross-examination. One has to remember that Lizzie was well off enough to afford an ex-Governor of Massachusetts as her attorney. That was not cheap, but she did get the best of 1893 (the year of the trial).

Jeff

[Rosella]

Yes, what is a reported $25,000 retainer fee when your life is at stake? Lizzie certainly assembled a brilliant legal team, there is no doubt about it.

In my opinion she was acquitted because the jury, consisting mainly of middle aged males from a conservative rural area, couldn't or wouldn't believe that a middleclass spinster who taught Sunday School could possibly commit two brutal axe murders.
Lizzie was also a devout Temperance advocate, so got the sympathies of the temperance movement and many leading feminists of the time. Feelings were quite favourable to her her at the time of the trial and then turned in the years afterwards.

[Mayerling]

Yes, what is a reported $25,000 retainer fee when your life is at stake? Lizzie certainly assembled a brilliant legal team, there is no doubt about it.

In my opinion she was acquitted because the jury, consisting mainly of middle aged males from a conservative rural area, couldn't or wouldn't believe that a middleclass spinster who taught Sunday School could possibly commit two brutal axe murders.
Lizzie was also a devout Temperance advocate, so got the sympathies of the temperance movement and many leading feminists of the time. Feelings were quite favourable to her her at the time of the trial and then turned in the years afterwards.

Hi Rosella,

I've often thought about that turn in the opinion towards Lizzie after her acquittal. Personally it resembles what happened toward O.J. Simpson in the African-American community after Cochrane and his team got O.J acquitted (like Lizzie of a double murder). In Simpson's case he was a symbol of the situation of African-Americans and the law in the U.S., so that the acquittal was like a victory by African-Americans over the law's usual bias. This, naturally, really overlooked the reality of the situation in the killings - instead of thinking of that reality the African-Americans just considered the brilliance of Cochrane, F. Lee Bailey's stunning performance in showing an effective detective was a bigot, and the business of that shriveled glove.

But once the acquittal had occurred and time past, the reality of the situation finally hit the supporters of Simpson "the symbol". He was not just a famous African-American who had been nearly "railroaded" for murder, but a rich dude who paid for better lawyers than the D.A.'s office provided, and who had some serious points on evidence or testimony that helped out. You'll notice how soon after, in the civil trial by Ron Goldman's family for damages in killing Goldman, O. J. lost. That probably shows what most people thought of the earlier acquittal's justification. The final nail in O.J.'s reputation was the legal debacle in Nevada regarding his actions in Las Vegas (totally unrelated to the earlier matters). Here the jury was unimpressed by O.J.'s arguments in defense, and his attorneys were not of the caliber of Cochrane (now dead, unfortunately) and his dream team, and O.J. ended up in prison - where he still is. It is a kind of anti-climax, but it satisfies many people.

For Lizzie, there was (fortunately) not to be any further legal messes, but once she gets acquitted she is slowly isolated as a pariah. Perhaps there was also some hints that in her private life she was a lesbian (she had some relationship, I believe, with an actress) that did not help in the 1890s. But it did not matter - she and Emma split the Borden fortune and lived comfortably. But even there it never was the same - Emma moved out of the house and rarely in contact with Lizzie ever again.

Jeff