1. "Would you all mind?"
Posted by Deecx on Feb-6th-03 at 11:52 AM

Answering a couple survey type questions for me?
I am doing a mid-term paper on this topic.


Is Lizzie guilty or innocent?

Do you think she was mentally ill?


  I'm trying to gather a consensus of what those who study this think.


  My name is Dee, I'm a new member here. I'm a 38 yr old, returning college student from Michigan myself, and I had never heard of this crime until now. 


Reagrds,
Dee
 

if i had to describe the case in a nutshell, i would say this:  an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence points directly at lizzie, while at the same time the physical evidence connecting her to the crimes is lacking to a baffling degree.  as to her guilt, most people who study this case change their mind several times.  the case is a conundrum.  i currently think she's guilty.

there is some evidence that lizzie was moody and quirky.  but i know of no evidence to back up a case for insanity.  (one might hypothesize a case of temporary insanity on that grim summer day.)

there are plenty of knowledgeable people here who would probably be happy to help you.

Probably guilty, not mentally ill
(welcome Dee-good luck with your paper)

I'm currently thinking she helped plan it, but didn't do
the deed with her own hands. I think if she did it herself
she had to have someone's help to have it look like she did
indeed just walk in & find Andrew. I can also see how it
might have actually been a semi-random act of violence. I
don't think of her as being insane --- but if she did it then
I assume she must have been or else she would have been hanged.
That only an insane person could stay that cool about it.

Start reading all the books available to you, in historical order, then make your own choice. Then present it here, and see what the others have to say. Just like a class in college?

[I, for one, will NOT do your homework for you.]

(Message last edited Feb-6th-03  6:13 PM.)

Are you asking opinions or not????
  Red

Welcome Dee.

Ask a Bordenite questions like those and you'll get 2 answers for each  question.

I don't believe she was mentally ill.

I lean (about 80-85%) toward Lizzie's guilt. If she did do it, she committed the crimes herself with possible help later from Emma or Morse.   I also have not ruled out the possibility of incest as a motive.

Ask me again tomorrow and I may have completely changed my mind.

  I have read the books and donr research.
I already have an opinion and theory.

  I guess you missed this comment.


"I'm trying to gather a consensus of what those who study this think."


Thanks
for your help.

Dee

  When I say "mentally ill" I don't necessarily mean insane.

  Like the shop lifting could be catagorized as mental illmess,
she certainly didn't need to shoplift. Just looking at their pictures they all seemed so unhappy. Unhappiness, to me breeds
different types of mental illness.


Thanks
for responding

Dee

I see what you mean Dee. I am thinking she was not mentally ill in relation to the fact that she never committed another violent act, certainly not another murder, after August 4. While not condoning the crimes of course, after visiting the house last fall,I got a gut feeling that under certain prolonged circumstances, most people who feel trapped or hopeless enough, can become capable of murder or suicide.

whoops-meant to send that somwheres else!


(Message last edited Feb-7th-03  11:17 AM.)

Was she guilty?  Of what?
Was she mentally ill?  Aren't we all, to some extent?
(Also, it's far from proven that she was a shoplifter, despite the Tilden-Thurber publicity.)

Hi Dee,
Welcome. I, like most of us, vacillate between guilty and innocent.  Just now, I think she is innocent, but knew more about the murder than she said.

Joe in Ironwood, MI, U.P.

Hi Deecx, welcome to the forum.  I myself vacillate between Lizzie being guilty, or if not, at least guilty of knowing what went on in that house that day.

As for insanity, thats hard to say.  There were never any psychiatric evaluations of Lizzie during her day that I know of?  She was viewed as odd by some of her contemporaries, but, thats not quite the same as insane.  So, I would have to say no to the insanity question. 

Welcome Deecx. If you are curious why so many of us go back and forth with this issue of guilt is that the physical evidence just doesn't support her guilt while the possible motive for the crime fits her like a glove. I am with the others who use this as the basis for their wavering.

I too think one way and then the other. I am actually hesitant to stick to one theory for any length of time because every time I do, I read some source or hear an argument which sways me in a different direction. All of this, of course, is why we are still talking about this case after so many years.

I am leaning towards her being involved, but not the actual murderer. Ask me later today and I might say differently.

Mentally ill? I don't think so. She was quite able to get on with her life following the brutal attacks and seemed to have been content. She certainly knew how to keep a secret!

That is a good point Kash, now I'm thinking that she may
have actually been very depressed & everyone was telling her to
just go on vacation & pretty much not listening to her.
Alice listened but didn't do more than tell her she was
over-reacting, and getting herself work up, didn't she? I'm
sure we have all been depressed in our lives & know that you
can't be talked out of what you are feeling. And ad to that
the heat & post-PMS and a lifetime of resentment & perhaps
anyone might take an axe to the ones you saw as the cause
of your problems.






(Message last edited Feb-7th-03  5:53 PM.)

Exactly Kim, thankfully today we have a lot more resources (therapy, anti-depressants etc) and knowledge about such things. But on the flip side we are also a much more violent society today with many more (i think) repeat offenders and serial killers) Go figure.

Guilt on Lizzie, I tend to lean right there in the middle. Because I can't say YES, She DID IT! But for some reason I tend to think, I don't see how she could have. Due to the fact that if so it was covered too well. As for mentally ill... I don't believe it was a factor in the murders, because whomever did it, did a terrific job of having the mental capacity to cover it up in a relatively short amount of time.
The stealing could be a mental illness, Probably a cry for attention or so. But the murders I don't see how they could have been.
   Red

Yes society today is so much more violent. Back then murder wasn't as rampid in America as it is today, Today we have so many they make talk shows and such about it. Can you believe my sister got my three year old nephew this game for xmas called grand theft auto! Now he's not allowed to play it anymore because he was pretending to run across the house shooting his family down. My husband has that game, and my 3 and 5yo. sons wanted to play it. My husband said NO, it's not a kids game! Ack to violence!
  Red

I don't remember ever seeing what she was sposed to have liked
to steal --- I just remember the paintings later. Think she was
like certain dead movies stars who were accused of stealing
personal care items? If she was taking good stuff it would
look like she was just greedy but if she was taking little
cheap 5 & 10 cent things maybe she was just trying to make
her pitiful little allowance go a little further.

They bought that game for a 3 yr old?


  A few months ago, In Grand Rapids, MI. some teenagers beat a man to near death, after playing that game. The man died later days later in the hospital. They actually went cruisin around in there car looking for someone to attack, they returned as many as six times to beat the guy, and then after beating the man went back too play the game some more.

Here's a link

http://fox17.trb.com/news/121802-wxmi-wyoming,0,4358400.story

  There are also a lot more people in the world today, then there were in 1892, which makes for a lot more sickness.

I think Lizzie was guilty. I do not believe she was mentally ill.

Below is a paragraph from pages 5 and 6 of Edmund Lester Pearson's essay entitled The Borden Case from his book Studies In Murder (Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., Garden City, New York, 1924). Deecx, I don't know whether you have read any of Pearson's work (he did believe in Lizzie's guilt). If you haven't he is worth looking up. Pearson is perhaps the most eloquent and entertaining analyst and commentator to write about the Borden murders.

"No one of these, I venture to assert, equals in peculiar interest the Borden murders in Fall River. Here were concerned neither gamblers, wasters, nor criminals, but quiet folk of a kind known to all of us. They were not members of a class among which killing is a matter of momentary impulse. They were so obscure that except for the event which put their names upon everybody's lips, we should never have heard of them.... The crime itself-unexpected, hideous, unexplained-was the central point of interest. When the trial came to an end, ten months later, and the jury considered their verdict, there was before them of course, only the task of answering, by yes or no, the question: was the accused person guilty? Apparently, they had little trouble in finding an answer to this, but the verdict did not clear up the astonishing puzzle. If, instead of a jury bound by our laws, they had been a committee of inquiry, charged with discovering an explanation of the crime, their task would have been as perplexing as anything which twelve men ever attempted. Each of the principal theories advanced at the time had its dark and doubtful points, and was moreover, as many reasonable men believed, in itself grossly improbable, and nearly contrary to human experience. Hardly ever was a murder committed where the limits of time and space so closed in upon the act, leaving such a narrow gap for the assassin to slip through to security."

These lines were written almost eighty years ago. I think they concisely and accurately describe why still today there is so much interest shown in the Borden murder case.

that no one ever looked more guilty is a large part of lizzie borden's fame.  in virtually every detail of actual evidence, the finger points toward lizzie.  yet if you study the case, at some point, you strain to find her innocent because all physical evidence connecting her seems to have never existed or mysteriously vanished.  and you have to wonder.  since the whole thing is so unlikely, so shocking -- how much more shocking would it be to find that lizzie is actually innocent?  and that's another characteristic of this case.  the truth about it is shocking irregardless of what it is.

nothing here of value to offer -- just my thoughts on your post.

Nothing of value??  Why my dear fellow Bordenite your thoughts are as valuable to our realm as is your presence.  Never under estimate the value and power of a true Bordenite.

Keep up the great input...one day this will all be the foundation of the Second Symposium...keep a watch on that.

BC

bobcook:

thanks, man.  i'll try to keep that in mind.

You are quite welcome kind sir.  Having an opinion and sharing that opinion is what this forum is all about.  Who knows who the real murderer was it's the fun and adventure of being among other Bordenites in the land of Bordenia just across the Taunton River from Swansea.

BC

The following quotation, or something like it, has been attributed to Sir Winston Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

It can be said that Lizzie Borden is the worst possible suspect in the murders of her father and stepmother (after all, she was 'tried'!) until all the other suspects are considered.

Haulover, I enjoy reading your thoughtful comments on this Forum!

thank you, doug.  do you still think lizzie is guilty or have you yet seen something that makes you doubt it?  if you look at her long enough, you will be tempted to find her innocent.

my conclusion about the trial is that she is innocent as far as the justice system is concerned.  she should have been found "not guilty." 

the truth is something else.  that trial was not about seeking truth.

When I first began reading about Lizzie and the Bordens I believed Lizzie to be innocent of the crimes. After all, she was acquitted and interesting theories could be and have been developed suggesting other guilty parties. Gradually, though, my thinking began to change and for a while I went back and forth. Did she or didn't she? Then, over time, I began to conclude that in fact Lizzie did the murders. This opinion has grown stronger as I make my way through primary sources and commentary (many are available in the LABVML) that I did not have access to earlier in my Lizzie Borden "career."

I just re-viewed the Legend movie tonight.  I wonder if they timed the act of killing Andrew from beginning to end?  A major movie company was in a unique position to shed light on this one important area.
I bet they didn't do it tho...I bet they shot the scene in bits!

After seeing that girl kill those people it seems more acceptable to me that she did do it.  That's a major influence on what I think about the crimes.  I first thought she did it because she obviously COULD, in the movie (in 1975).  Then as the scene faded from my visual memory and I learned more about human nature as I grew older, I began to think she didn't kill with her own hands.  I couldn't imagine a *Denial* strong enough to allow her to live her life in Fall River and still hold her head up.  So I figured she had something to do with the murders, yet her role was lesser than I had thought, to let her live a relatively normal life after--I mean she didn't go berserk, and she didn't go to perdition and she didn't commit suicide.  So whatever was on her conscience couldn't, in HER mind, be THAT bad.
Now I see THAT MOVIE again, and of course she did it!  It's obvious!
So I guess I'll continue to change my mind... I wonder for how long....?

i know what you mean.

i would say it was almost certainly filmed in segments.   the scene showing her kill andrew might not have even been filmed on the same day as, say, the scene where she walks to the sink.  and not all was filmed.  when she finishes with andrew, it cuts to her walking toward the sink. 

however, that is a good idea for another movie.  have a camera follow her every single step of the way.  and swing the axe the right number of times.

i've always thought the film a surprisingly good effort for a tv movie.  of course, they don't stick to facts.  but their embellishments serve pretty well the lizzie borden legend.  the way she leans on emma takes advantage of her.  (nice touch how emma is immediately suspicious of lizzie.)  i like the scene where they argue in the parlor and lizzie threatens mrs. borden.  interesting how they have her steal the axe and then drop it down the toilet.  (was it possible for her to conceal it that way?)

as to a guilty lizzie living the rest of her life out like that..... all i can think of is something like an underdeveloped feeling nature, a selfishness or lack of conscience.  a tendency to use people but never truly know what love is.  this is all speculation, of course.

I think I indicated in another post that when I visited the Fall River Historical Society, they were quite critical of this film and said that it was the only Lizzie project that made no effort to contact the Historical Society for accurate information.  In any event, I enjoyed the film and recognize that real liberties are taken and huge assumptions are made.  However, dropping the axe into the privy was a stroke of genius and I have wondered, since seeing the film, if that was what Lizzie might have done.  What a great idea!  I doubt that there would have been any cops who would have been willing to dive into that cesspool to look for evidence.

Apparently the Borden's *convenience* in the cellar was more of a convenience than we ever thought.
It was supposedly a flush toilet!
If so, there'd be no yawning hole to delve into, and a person probably couldn't flush much.
This was one of the biggest surprises to me that I ever heard on the message board!  And it was pretty recently!

But what do we know about the privy in the back of the barn?

I recall someone, I think it was Harry, posted something about the police looking under the barn and we had wondered if this meant the privy out back.  I would think as distasteful a job as it was that they would have had to at least take a cursory look.  It must have stank to high heavens in the summer heat. 

There's a diagram of the Borden house that I believe is posted at the "Virtual Borden House" site and which can be accessed at lizzieandrewborden.com.  The person who did the diagram claims it shows some items of furniture that were known to be in certain positions in the house.  (Other items were known to be in the house, but their exact positions aren't known.)  We should be aware that there are errors in that diagram, as I recently mentioned elsewhere, (e. g., "coffee tables" shown in the parlor and sitting room).  One thing that looks to be an error is that a two-hole privy is shown in the Borden cellar.  Possibly there was such a "convenience" there at one time, but it's my understanding the Bordens had a flush toilet.  Is it possible the old two-holer was left in place?  I have no idea where the creator of this diagram got his/her facts, because most of them don't appear in primary sources or in the crime-scene photographs.  For example, the parlor didn't really figure in the murders at all and wasn't photographed.  Possibly a seance was held for the purpose of "furnishing" the house???

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BibliographyLBQAuth.htm#m

"McNelly, Nancy A.F. 'The Online Lizzie Borden.' Lizzie Borden Quarterly V.2 (April 1998): 1, 15-17.
McNelly details the development and design of her web page (The Virtual Lizzie Borden House). Included are several images from her site and diagrams showing the stages of the building of the site."

--From the Museum/Library I could find the citation for Ms. McNelly's story of her recreation of the Borden house into virtual reality for the LBQ.  She read all the books, including finding Lincoln the "most helpful when it came to furnishings".
She picked up the nuggets of information that "were dropped by the participants themselves."
Here is her explanation of the *basement* & the parlor, pg. 15:

"As much as I craved accuracy, there were times when I simply had no choice but to guess in regard to colors and furniture.  The parlor in particular remained a mystery.  In such cases I tried to stay with objects that matched the Borden's taste:  the solid, dark hardwood furniture, little round decorative tables, and framed wall hangings of the day....

...[When Ms. McNelly visited the house, she found that] The part of the house that I liked best was the basement.  This was partly due to the fact that I couldn't find a description of it's layout, but primarily because it was the least altered space in the house.  The laundry room, fruit cellar, wood rooms, and back stairs still stand.  As Ron [Evans, co-owner] pointed out to me, even the location of the walls of the tiny two-seat earth privy can still be seen.  It was in the basement that I felt closest to the house as it was when Lizzie lived there, and it was after my visit that I began 'construction' on my computer."...

The spiel given at the house to tours has probably evolved over the years as different people have been brought in to increase the authenticity of the place, it's furnishings and it's legend.
But you were there, right?  And Stef was there, and I believe her tour included some info on the privy.

Can you or others recount what they were told at tours thru the years as to the basement?


(Message last edited Feb-22nd-03  2:39 AM.)

So many small errors, and a few big ones, exlst in Nancy McNelly's diagrams that I am forced to regard all of her diagrams as suspect.
Even she admits that she had to "guess" sometimes.

One of the errors that stuck in my craw, was the diagram of the Borden Lot House plan. She does not show the barn and house in their relatively correct position. This can be verified by checking an accurate drawing provided by other sources (e.g. Rebello, Porter, etc).
The pathway next to the barn doesn't go directly to the side steps of the house; there is a dog-leg.  Why do I find this important?  Because it plays a big part in discussions of whether Lubinsky saw Lizzie (or anyone) coming up the path on that fateful day. His field of vision would be materially reduced.
A while back I brought this to Ms. McNelly's attention. She apparently saw fit to ignore my remarks and I continue to see the same diagram, with its errors, in current publications. 

A very good comment on this piece of evidence!
If the path swung to the north, that would provide more exposure to a passer by on the street or sidwalk.

Inquest
Lizzie
76+
Q. I ask you why you should select that place, which was the only place which would put you out of sight of the house, to eat those three pears in?
A. I cannot tell you any reason.
Q. You observe that fact, do you not? You have put yourself in the only place perhaps, where it would be impossible for you to see a person going into the house?...[kk-He's referring to the barn loft]
A. Yes sir, I should have seen them from the front window.
Q. From anywhere in the yard?
A. No sir, not unless from the end of the barn.
Q. Ordinarily in the yard you could see them, and in the kitchen where you had been, you could have seen them?
A. I don't think I understand.
Q. When you were in the kitchen, you could see persons who came in at the back door?
A. Yes sir.
Q. When you were in the yard, unless you were around the corner of the house, you could see them come in at the back door?
A. No sir, not unless I was at the corner of the barn; the minute I turned I could not.
Q. What was there?
A. A little jog like, the walk turns.


Here's the jog in the walk (from LABVM/L)
Note the side stairs, right up against the house.



If Lizzie had stayed on that path, she would not make the jog returning until she was right at the steps to the house.

(Message last edited Feb-22nd-03  8:42 PM.)

IMHO, the entire premise of Lincoln's book is suspect (the "temporal epilepsy" theory).  Therefore, she's about the last source I would use for furnishing a virtual Borden house.  I do agree that the primary sources provide a lot of good info; however, I've yet to read in one of them that the Bordens had coffee tables in the parlor and sitting room!  "A little table nigh the sofa" leaves a lot to the imagination.
I just acquired a beautiful little book about Thomas Wolfe's old home in North Carolina, which has been lovingly preserved, and which I've never visited.  It's of a later vintage than the Borden house, but I was struck by one of the bedrooms, because I think its style looks similar to the way Lizzie's room actually would have looked in 1892.  Remember, someone said she had painted furniture, and this room in the Wolfe house has a painted set, with the bed placed kitty-corner, as Lizzie's apparently was.  Of course, little of our info about Lizzie's room comes from primary sources, I guess.  (Only that she may have had a screen that needed fixing.)

Here's a view of what you would have seen as you exited the barn and looked toward the rear of the house. You would not have seen the back stairs or have been seen from Second St. until you rounded the "jog" in the pathway.

Then it is only 15 feet from the end of the barn to the stairs. (Rebello, p45)



(Message last edited Feb-22nd-03  10:13 PM.)

Did you ever notice in alot of the photos of the Borden's house that the exterior shutters are closed, I wonder why?  As far as I know, those shutters were closed during big storms and when you left the house and went away say on vacation or something. 

That was an excellent view!  Yea, Harry and Bill!

I assume the jog was not 15 feet from the steps, but that the barn WAS?

OOO Edisto I thought you'd like that info that some of the house was decorated per V. Lincoln.

But I think there was testimony by police, I believe, as to Lizzie's room.
Also by Morse (the desk) and the portiere by Alice?  And the lounge...
I wonder, now, if I can furnish Lizzie's room with testimony...hmmm    ?

I believe the shutters were also employed to block the sun.  I recall that it was mentioned the sitting room did not have curtains. This may have been true with other rooms in the house.

(Message last edited Feb-23rd-03  11:10 AM.)

I remember a newspaper article (I think that's what it was) written by someone who claimed she had been given a tour of the Borden house.  She described Lizzie's room in great detail, down to the "painted set" and the dainty bedspread.  The only problem is that she was probably never in the house at all!  We all know how unreliable the newspaper reports can be.  I keep thinking of that drawing in one of the newspapers (I think it's in that "Did She or Didn't She?" book) that clearly shows a door in the north wall of the guest room.  It would have been a doorway to nowhere, because that's an outside wall, and there's no staircase there. 

According to Bridget's testimony at the trial, there were interior shutters on the dining room and sitting room windows.  She is asked whether she changed the position of them at all and she says that the bottom shutters were partially open and the top ones were closed and that she didn't alter their positions at all.  Which to me sounds strange, how would you clean all of the interior windows with the shutters covering them? 

So, I'm still at a loss as to why those exterior shutters seem to be closed in random areas of the Borden house. 

Shutters offer protection (before storm windows) in the winter time.
They also allow windows to remain open in summer, w/o letting in vermin or unwanted visitors. IMO