1. "Why Lizzie Is Guilty of Swinging the Axe"
Posted by haulover on Dec-17th-02 at 10:13 PM

her inquest testimony is full of lies.  her defenders have explanations for it.  but what of this?

her premonition in talking to mrs. russell the night before that "someone might do something." 

the testimony of the druggist eli bence and the statements of his associates?  they did not just "hear her voice," as one writer contended.  they heard and saw her.  in fact, one of them recognized her by "that peculiar look around the eyes."  yet lizzie denied knowing that drug store.   she denied trying to buy prussic acid.  she is lying. 

she wanted to poison them, and when she couldn't get it, she resorted to the axe. 

how else can you explain this behavior?  the murder was planned.

could she have hired someone to do it?  paid a hitman?  if so, why couldn't she get herself out of the house quicker?

I don't know why I am replying, because I really have no reply.
Lizzie's Inquest testimony is inexplicable.
I am writing to relate to you my feelings when I read that document.
I get mad.  I get so that I almost despise Lizzie.
Now a written record from 110 years ago that can STILL inspire that awful feeling, must be something pretty powerful.
I get a sense that you are in the throes of despising Lizzie right now.
I think partly it has to do with a feeling that she must be ignorant of the effect of her testimony, how nonsensical it sounds (To Anyone), and how callous, or also that she must think we (or them) were a bunch of idiots to try to *sell*  us such a story.
BUT, if it is not compared with Bridget's statements it loses some of it's impossibilty.
Also, I remind myself often, we can't hear how she sounded, see her demeanor, or find those places in her speech where she might have used emphasis.
If we saw her deliver that testimony in person, we might have found some pity in us, for the girl who lost half her family.
I know this doesn't help, but you are not alone in trying to reconcile this.

kat:

i appreciate the empathy.  yes, it is an outrage.  it's always tempting to want to find her innocent because of the dress/weapon issue and when you look at that innocent face it's hard to believe -- and that's  exactly where the jurors were. 

but the theories that find her innocent, such as the brown theory (i guess most recent example) really fall apart when common sense is applied.  according to the brown theory, abby was killed because she walked into the wrong room at the wrong time.  lizzie is in the house when abby is killed and yet hears nothing and doesn't think anything about the fact that she doesn't come back downstairs?  i noticed just recently that she tells an officer at the scene in the immediate aftermath that she saw abby making up the spare room.  later at the inquest, she says she noticed the door shut and assumed abby had shut it up like she said she was going to.  it's as though abby herself becomes a nonentity.  what i mean is, her denial is so thorough that psychologically it's a denial that abby ever even existed. 

or let me put it this way.  if the brown theory or something like it is correct -- then lizzie was in on it as a planned killing.  she would have known when abby was killed, and said, okay you wait here in this room until father comes home and i'll let you know when the coast is clear.  i suppose an illegitimate son might have done this in exchange for payment from lizzie.  even so, lizzie is just as guilty. 

it's lizzie and emma who benefited from the murder.  didn't lizzie blow her savings on her europe trip?  notice her lifestyle change after the murders.

if lizzie herself swung the axe -- then i suppose she is both stupid and clever in a weird sort of way.  the best scenario for this i have come up with is that she murders abby and cleans herself up and burns the dress.  this explains why she didn't get out of the house sooner.  also why she is now wearing a dress and hat more suitable for going out.  then father comes home.  the second murder is more difficult to account for.  she still has the axe which she intended to take from the house.  in killing andrew, the coat could be a big key.  as for getting rid of the axe -- that axe that was found later, i think on top of a neighbor's barn, that's probably it -- if there was a way for her to put it there.  could she have slung it from the barn?  or wasn't there a well or a sceptic of some kind where she could have dropped it?

it's shocking and hard to believe.  yet should it be?  people do unbelievable things all the time.  take the susan smith case.  she drowns her children in a lake because she's bored and wants to have an affair with someone.  at one point in the questioning, she breaks down and confesses.  but if she were lizzie borden, confession would have been impossible; the denials would have continued beyond all reason.  once charged, she could have stuck with her denials ....and in the end found innocent of the crime because no one saw her and there was no physical evidence linking her.

you might say it was the lack of a conscience that saved her from a conviction.

BTW:  i wish i knew more about that axe that was found months later.  i don't think it was brought up in the trial, was it?  i'd specifically like to know exactly where it was found in relation to the borden barn.  i'm not clear on that.






 

I've always thought it was either an outsider or else
she was in on it & didn't actually do it. Just because a
person is a liar doesn't make them a killer. Smashing
people's heads in with a hatchet seems like what a wildly
unbalanced person would do, nothing real sly about that.
Could someone be that crazy or that mean only twice in
their life? Even if all the people they hated were dead
you would think something else would have happened, who
could stop if they were crazy enough to kill? I don't
think she had time to clean herself & be composed by the
time she yelled for Bridget. Doesn't it seem like if
you are trying to clean up "evidence" you might overlook
things because you are rushing? 

i say it can't be that someone else did it and lizzie did not know about it until she found andrew.  because she would have heard something to start with, and also would have wondered at Abby's abrupt disppearance; lizzie would have expected abby to pass through the dining room again to get to her room. 

that she paid someone to do it while she stayed in the house herself to supervise the crime -- it's highly unlikely that she would have chosen a method that made her look so guilty.

it's interesting the things she said in the immediate aftermath, which she later changed:
1) she saw abby making up the bed
2) went out to barn for:  iron or lead to fix screen
3) heard noise she describes as:  a groan, a distressing sound, a scraping sound

#3 is most interesting.  she dropped that altogether and insisted she never heard a thing.  what do you suppose she was thinking about?  some have suggested it was the sound of the screen door, but if so bridget would have heard it.

back to the inquest:  here's something particularly galling and i think very telling:  lizzie claims that when she found andrew she said to bridget that she "thinks" father is "hurt."  knowlton seems taken aback and asks her if she saw the blood on his face.  she says yes "that's what made me afraid."  her instinct is to run away, to not enter the room, to not touch her father whom she "thinks" is "hurt."  she says she was "horrified."  this is not the reaction of a loving daughter.  the more i think about it the more ludicrous it becomes:  she "thinks" her father lying there with his face smashed in is "hurt" and it "terrifies" her and she can't be alone and needs a doctor.  (she made it perfectly clear to maggie that he was dead)  It's not concern, compassion, grief -- no, it's horror.

I guess all of us have gone back and forth with the question: Did she or didn't she?  After long consideration and changing my mind several times, I am strongly inclined to agree with you, haulover.  I, too, just recently went over Lizzie's inquest testimony and I am convinced that she lied over and over.  There was no trace that anyone had been in the barn, for example (as per police reports).  I think she did, in fact, act quickly and clean everything up.  She seems to have done a better job at hiding the fact that she did it than in making up stories that were plausible.  It is so obvious that she tried to make it seem like she was outside of the house for about half an hour--supposedly to make it impossible for her to commit the crimes.  Little did she realize that Abby's coagulated blood would prove that Abby was killed long before Andrew--that the crimes were not committed close in time.  Also, her testimony about the door of the guest room--whether she saw it opened or closed--gives her away, especially since she said she went upstairs to take up the clothes at some point.  We all know that at the time she supposedly did this, Abby was lying dead in that room. Yet Lizzie's story is concocted around the supposed belief that a murderer killed them both in quick succession.  Then there is her outright lying about trying to buy prussic acid.  She was positively identified as having done so by three witnesses.  We could go on and on. 

we agonize over the question, "How could she have done this and lived with herself?"  Well, somebody did it and got away with it, that's for sure.  but we would prefer to see a mentally unbalanced maniac doing it; that's more comfortable for us. 

but i think there are some people who are able to do the unthinkable to get what they want, and they are not people who appear to be evil or insane either.  there's just something in particular lacking in the moral nature of the person.  in lizzie's case, it could be she lacked the ability to truly love someone.  perhaps lizzie's uncanny ability to deny was an effective weapon against a guilty conscience.  her preoccupation with animals just backs up the idea that she was a person who wants what she wants and doesn't really care about anybody.  i don't have any data to back this up -- but i've noticed that frequently a person with a cruel streak or with a problem/hatred toward humanity -- frequently they will lavish what they do have on animals, which do not threaten or challenge them in any way.  (i don't mean to say that a love of animals or preoccupation is by definition indicative of a cruel person.)

she screwed her barn story up badly.  the box she says she went upstairs to look through was actually downstairs near the door.  it was a basket upstairs.

i also figured she hoped they would think just what the doctor did before he could learn better -- that the murderer had killed andrew and chased abby upstairs.

i wish we could explain exactly how it happened.  the biggest problem is the second murder.

i'm intersted in that axe found months later on or in neighbor's barn.  i thought i saw mention somewhere but haven't found it yet.


 

I sort of agree. Maybe she was in on it. As for her testimony, there is another way to look at it. When I was in school, there was a debate that we had to paticipate in. I thought I would do just fine. I had everything written out for my speech, I had side notes written for answering questions and everything. The time came, and I went up there, and suddenly my mind went blank. I read the speech without emotion. Even when asked questions that I had the answers to, half the time I ended up with off handed answers, basically, I'm not sure, or I'll have to look that up. Even though I knew it, my mind sort of froze in front of those people. And it was all I could do just to keep myself from getting a failing grade, to stand up there, and take it all in, and just answer whatever popped into my head in order to get it all done and over with. I imagine that happens alot. A sort of stage fright if you haven't figured it out. The dress was obviously not covered in blood by any means. It had a few spots of something. Hardly enough to have commited two murders, or even one of that magnatude. The splattering of blood would be inevidable! If you used a butcher knife, an ax, or any blunt object in order to crack open skulls like that. It's way too complicated for her to have cleaned up, then gone into hysterics about in such a short amount of time. I believe that if Bridget could pass up Abby's dead body a few times, Lizzie could as well, so that part doesn't fly with me either.
  If by chance Lizzie did do it, which of course is always a possibility, then more then likely someone else was involved. But I do not believe that the same person who could hack up skulls of family members, could also clean themselves up, and make the discovery, all within that short of time. It would take someone with mutiple personalities to go insane, then suddenly gain composure enough to deny ever doing anything. Most people couldn't carry that off, and still be mentally and emotionally feeling AKA, a human being.People now days turn to Lizzie, due to the fact she was there at the house, bridget was there also. Possibly someone dropping off a note, possibly a carrage that stopped by with an unknown assailant. To explore all possibilities is the test of it all. If you always go with the obvious suspect then alot of murders would be running free, (that does happen alot, so bad example).
  I mean, how wild would it be if Andrew actually killed Abby, then someone came behind and killed Andrew? A bit off the wall I agree, but then again so is the whole case.
  Oh well, that's my long winded veiw on things, take it as you will, with a grain of salt hopefully, because I do alot, I just enjoy the possibilities, and the thinking involved in this group of Bordenites, whom I have grown to enjoy, and love being around!
      RedFern

The undeniable fact is that Lizzie was found "not guilty" by a jury, and no one can change this. Were they wrong? The answer is this: were YOU ever on a jury? Were YOU wrong in the verdict?

I won't go over the details again, but this fact remains. In spite of the jingle (whose other twelve (?) stanzas were lost forever.

This is really good you guys!  There's some passion here, as well as intellect...

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/PossibleWeapons.htm
"According to Robert Flynn in his Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe (King Philip Pub. Co., 1992), it 'is impossible to conclusively determine the size of an axe or hatchet head by measuring the width of marks and incisions.' Further he states, after a careful analysis of the evidence and testimony that 'the hatchet found on the roof the Crowe Barn [June 14, 1893] was in all probability the murder weapon.'

From the Emery Scrapbook, owned by Mr. Flynn, we are shown this news item, dated June 15, 1893:"

Here is the LOCAL map:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/FallRiverMaps.htm
All images from the LABVM/L


(Message last edited Dec-18th-02  8:15 PM.)

redfern:

i've considered the nervousness/confusion myself.  The difference in lizzie's case is that there is always a reason for the lies, evasions, or misleading statements.  in fact, they are even progressive.  for ex:  never saw abby after she went upstairs.  what do you suppose she was doing?  i don't know, it's always been a mystery.  any idea what would occupy her?  sometimes she sewed there but didn't hear the machine.  could she have gotten past you?  well, i went down to the cellar once. FINALLY, she comes out with the note story.  she had told the note story at the crime scene, but now did not want to say so because she wanted to avoid having had any conversation with abby that morning.  the next day she's firm on this:  she had assumed abby had gone out.  and she adds that abby was frequently in and out that way and it was something she wouldn't have paid much attention to.  but you can see how the story evolved and why.

rays:

i do understand that.  under the circumstances, i don't see how the jury could have decided otherwise.  also i even agree with it where the justice system is concerned.  it is supposed to be extremely difficult to find someone guilty.  was there a shadow of a doubt?  most definitely when you take into account that the jury could not consider the inquest testimony or the bence testimony.  but even so -- the lack of physical evidence connecting her to the murders was in itself enough to clear her.  probably guilty is not the same as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  and yes, i've been on a jury in a murder case.

but we're searching for the truth and there is no judge to restrict our sources.

kat:

thanks.  that's exactly what i was looking for.  now correct me if i'm wrong.  but that means it was easy enough to put the murder weapon on that roof from the borden yard.  and looks like a big oversight on the part of the police the day of the murders.

one other thing in connection to this:  i searched the witness statements in vain today.............but i thought i had read a statement from someone saying they heard a loud unusual noise in that area.  maybe not.  but i wonder if this is the sound lizzie is trying to explain at first because she heard it and thought someone else might have heard it.........throwing the axe on the roof.

i meant to point this out earlier to support my point about how inappropriate lizzie's stated reaction to her father was.

in the radin book, "lizzie borden:  the untold story," he tries to implicate the maid.  he claims the maid looks guilty because she runs into the room when she sees mrs. borden's body and opens the shutters.  i guess he means to say it's suspicious that she is not afraid.  and this is the opposite reaction that lizzie claims to have in reaction to her father.  but just think.  bridget is having the more natural reaction:  a concern, a desire to know if mrs. borden is fainted, hurt, dead, or what.  lizzie's "horrified" reaction is what is so horrible.  she should have had some blood on her.  she should have wanted a closer look, felt his pulse, shook him, something.  at least that's what i would have done.  but for her it's just a horrifying sight.  she's thinking only of herself.

when she calls for bridget and tells her she needs a doctor, she's thinking of herself, not her father -- for she tells her clearly that he's dead.  later she realizes this error, which is why she says in the inquest that she told bridget she thought father was hurt.  this is a lie.

lizzie is a lying murderer -- able to recognize what would be considered appropriate as opposed to inappropriate behavior -- but unable to understand the heart of the matter. 

when she tells mrs. churchill she thought she heard abby come back and wishes someone would look for her -- the question is, why doesn't lizzie get off her ass and look?

lizzie borden was very fortunate, but very guilty.

Remember there is a big tall pile of lumber in the backyard up against that back S.E. fence, plus barbed wire at the top of it's six foot height.
If a  person flung  that hatchet up there, from the Borden yard, they may have had to scale that pile somewhat...maybe not...but it should be taken into consideration.

Also, apparently the police did check the Borden's roof.  It's not without the realm of possibility that when they checked the roof at #92 they might have gotten a glimpse of the Crowe barn roof, if they had a vantage point.  Also that roof may have been visible from Bridget's window?  (I think someone on here pointed this out as something to consider)...if that hatchet had been there at the time of the searches, it May have been spotted, accidently...

As to the banging sound, that was in the testimony of Mrs. Dr. Chagnon & her stepdaughter, Martha.  They agree they heard a noise at the fence about 11 p.m. or 11:30 p.m. Wednesday night, but their dog did not bark.
You may want to double-check them at trial, to see if there is any change in their statement.

Prelim.
Mrs. Chagnon
Pg. 462
Q.  Did you hear anything then?
A.  Yes. She [Martha] said "did you hear some noise"? I was near the door; I listened; I heard some noise myself in the yard back.
Q.  What did it sound like? What did it appear to be?
A.  It seemed to me it was like somebody jumping on the fence.
Q.  That is what it sounded like to you?
A.  Yes Sir.

More about that "Mysterious Axe."

This from the pen of Wm. Kunstler, The New York Times, May 13, 1979:

"The final ironic episode in this bizarre case occurred two years after her death.  The new owners of the house on Second Street decided to demolish a  backyard barn which Lizzie had visited on the morning of the murders.  When it was pulled down, a cooper's hammer, described as an 'ax' by reporters hopefully covering the demolition, was found under the barn floor.  In actuality, the hammer, because of the short blunt edge, could not have been the death weapon involved in the Borden deaths, but it cost Bristol county $200 for the services of an analytical chemist to quiet the Fall River newspapers.  Even Lizzie, who had little enough to laugh about in her lonely and bitter life, might have smiled at that."

(Message last edited Dec-19th-02  3:11 PM.)

The most obvious comment on the found "axe" is that the police, who searched all over the yard (and probably beyond) did NOT find it. Nor did any of the many, many curious bystanders.
Thus it had to be planted months afterwards, or weeks before it was found (the rust implies weeks).

A few years ago Stanford Univ (law school?) in Calif held a mock trial replay. Same testimony, same results. Would there have been a difference with the rejected testimony? I really don't know.

rays:

i tend to think that even with the inclusion of her inquest testimony and the eli bence testimony -- it is still "not guilty."  i don't believe lizzie's story for a minute but as a juror i can't say it is impossible.  you don't convict someone on the basis of probabilities or improbabilities.  i would hate to see the precedent set that "probably guilty" equals "guilty."  i'm not even sure if finding a bloody axe would have been enough for a guilty verdict.  without a witness to the murders, they needed blood on her or on a personal belonging of hers.  had massachusetts allowed fingerprinting then, and had they found an axe handle with her prints on it, that would have been sufficient evidence for a conviction.  or would it?  fingerprinting was very controversial then.

yes, well there is no proving it.  but it would make sense if it were the murder weapon.  what better reason for an axe, in that vicinity, to be lying on a roof?

but then.......because of when it was found, you have the problem that there is a good chance it was planted.

If Planted, and then found, it didn't seem to affect the trial.
If innocently left behind, then probably that happened another
day, or week or month?

My friend came over to look at my kitchen range, because it was buzzing.
We looked all around and she decided to cut the wire to the exhaust fan.  That worked, and we gabbed a bit and she left.  About 2 weeks later it started buzzing again, and so I lifted up the hood and there was her wire cutters implement, which she uses constantly.
I mentioned it to her because as we get older we get a bit absent minded.  She said "I wondered where I had left those!  I had to buy a new one."
This pair looked ALREADY new, to me.
She must constantly be replacing her most useful tools.

I guess the moral of this story (which just happened last week) is that a roofer might misplace his shingling hatchet and forget where he left it....maybe that is more easily accountable than someone throwing something of that size and weight up onto the roof, to hide it.
(That's A GRAND hiding place, though!  Just far enough away from the Borden property to be unable to tie it in as evidence against Lizzie etc.)

I've been thinking about the configuration of the household, after the murders.
Everybody's home now Thursday night.
Lizzie stays, Emma stays, Alice stays, Morse stays
BUT BRIDGET GET'S The Heck OUT!  WITH her belongings!
Is she superstitious (as you or I might be or even being Irish then?) or does she think she knows something and gets out?
I also wonder WHY she came back!

"It's lizzie and emma who benefited from the murder.  didn't lizzie blow her savings on her europe trip?  notice her lifestyle change after the murders."

Did she blow her savings on the trip to Europe? No one so far has come up with any proof the money came from her account or came from her father, have they?

Lizzie's inquest testimony is full of lies?  

no, i don't have anything documenting that.  i can't remember where i got it.  probably in one of the books it was mentioned as a probability or that it had been some gossip --  i don't know.  i only meant to speculate about that.

as for her testimony, do you actually believe her to be telling the truth -- or were you joking?

while i'm beating up on lizzie, note this remarkable exchange.  an indication of knowlton's attitude toward her at this point.

Q. At any time did you say anything about her to anybody?
A. No sir.
Q. To the effect that she was out?
A. I told father when he came in.
Q. After your father was killed?
A. No sir.


asking her a ridiculous question to see if she would give a ridiculous answer, i suppose.  she didn't fall for it though.  her stubborn evasiveness is rather formidable. 

did anyone take a look at that question i had earlier -- not sure if it's in this thread -- about the fishing lines?  at one point she refers to what is "at the farm."  from there, he seems to think this is the same place she is planning to go fishing, but it isn't, is it?  that explains her statement, "i couldn't get them."  my impression is that she has totally confused him at this point. 

About the fishing lines, I think she was just answering his questions, that he didn't get it is his problem. As I remember the questions pertain both to her previous fishing experience and the upcoming trip and Knowlton cannot follow her answers.

One author said that Lizzie also tried to confuse Knowlton as to her being upstairs in the loft and her looking out the window, the author thought Lizzie was just playing with Knowlton, but reading it the testimony over, she isn't, to me. 

I think a large part of the problem with the inquest testimony is that Lizzie and Knowlton's minds work in totally different ways, plus their natural antipathy toward each other because each is on a different side here, and maybe they just didn't like each other anyway.

Another possibility is that men tend to think about things in an order and women see the total picture (this is psychologically tested..no I don't know which test but it's a left brain-right brain type of thing). It has nothing to do with 1892-3 or 2002. Therefore when a man asks a woman a question she answers already in control of lots of periphery information regarding the question, in other words she is way ahead of him. He hears only a portion of the answer, the one he comprehends. Then she has to continue to explain until he finally gets it.

Then again, perhaps Lizzie thought that if she gave the man an inch he would think he was a ruler and she wanted to maintain her independence on the stand.

No, I don't think Lizzie's inquest statement was all lies. It may not be all the truth but it isn't total disembling, to me. You are thinking now....that I am entitled to my own misguided opinion. But, I have years, y e a r s, left to ponder this mystery and I feel I would be shooting myself in the foot at this point by totally throwing out what she said.

about the fishing lines:  when she introduces that about the lines at the farm, she's just grasping at whatever she can think of.  he assumes she's following some sort of logic.  of course, she isn't; from her point of view, it's better to confuse.  and she does it pretty successfuly.

but, the truth?  the truth is that lizzie borden is a liar.

the point you make about gender is valid enough.  it's the tendency to dance around something as opposed to going after its origin in such a way as to nail it.  that's a gender difference in thinking.  but her gender did not work against her -- it worked for her. 

as to your final point:  i would love to find lizzie borden innocent.  i truly would.  i look at that innocent face, and i think -- no, it can't be. i think, there must be a lot of information missing.  but whether something is missing or not, she is a classical liar.  apart from naming names correctly, her whole inquest is a lie.

if she did not swing the axe herself, she knew who did.  she is a rare example of someone who is stupid and clever at the same time.  she manages to keep blood off herself, yet it is she who starts the friction between herself and knowlton by answering, "that depends upon one's idea of cordiality."  she would have been better off to have said, "oh yes, sir, we were very cordial."  my impression is that she resented being questioned.

Isn't Lizzie's reply "depends on meaning of cordiality" the TRUTH?
She wasn't on the best terms, but not bitter enemies. Good enough for social convention?
Not telling everything is NOT the same as lying. Or else you'd be blaming all the politicians, policemen (who found handle in cellar?), newspaper reporters, man and woman in the street, etc.
I think Andy drilled it into his girls to NEVER tell about Wm S Borden. Don't forget, another heir would be a claim against the fortune. Not guilty because of insanity would allow a clever lawyer (no shortage of them then or now) to file a claim.

Ray, do you mean if *Wm. Borden* were tried & found not guilty by reason of insanity, he could have had a lawyer file a claim anyway, against the estate of Andrew?
I don't quite follow you.  Is that true?  Or if a *crazy* person filed a claim, wouldn't that show they weren't crazy, after all, by knowing that law?  (If there was one?)
There was a survey to see if neighbors, friends, and relatives thought there was any insanity in the Morse or Borden line, before Knowlton decided which specific charges to include in Lizzie's indictment...so I am confused...to whom do you refer?

I believe its standard law that a murderer cannot inherit (in this case) and benefit from the crime. Probably goes back to Medieval Times. So anyone found guilty of murdering someone could not inherit.
Found "not guilty by insanity" could mean an inheritance, IMO.
So the girls would stand not only scorn and insults ("any other relatives we don't know about?") but the real damage of less money. What would Andy do in this case?

Wm S Borden had a wife who could claim the family's share?