Kids Who Kill Parents

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:09 am

This is the title of a Washington Post article in 1984: "Kids Who Kill Parents."

It is pretty interesting that the actual cases which the Post brings up from it's records includes a minimum of 7 killings, 5 of which were stabbings. One was a gun and one was not specific. These were parricides from the previous year, reported by them in their paper.

The author, Lawrence Meyer, staff writer, mentions Lizzie Borden as the embodiment of our society's "repulsion and fascination" for the crime of parricide.

He claims that "roughly 300 parents are killed every year in this country by their offspring" and mentions that "Several psychiatrists interviewed for this article commented that the surprise is not that some children kill their parents, but that the number is not greater." They say the taboo is too strong to allow for many more murders than this.

What was an interesting point being made is that it is a theory that "Some psychiatrists and psychologists say that a murderous child is an extension of a parent, that a parent uses the child as a weapon to kill himself."

This is tantalizing and there is more theory here on abuse.

Last night on Law and Order, the TV show, Fred Thompson ended with a quote that he (his character) had been told when he first started practicing criminal law: That the question is did the person really need killing? This was to help the prosecution and defense define early on in a case what charges to bring that a jury could bear and how the jurist, as everyman, would interpret the defendant's motive.

It really seems like "Parricide does not occur in a vacuum. The child who kills a parent is unlikely to be the only troubled member of the family, whatever the facade the family shows to outsiders..."

This also has me thinking about Emma. Whatever affected Lizzie in that home must have affected Emma somewhat as well...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:18 am

This article claims:
"An apparently small number of parricides are committed by psychotics and children under the influence of mind-altering drugs. The rest seem to be committed by two types of children:
Victims of overt, physical abuse.
Victims of a subtler, sometimes covert and unseen psychological abuse that may seem to an outsider to be benign at worst or even 'good' for the child."

Dr. Blumberg states, "I think I can almost say categorically that I have never seen a murderer who has come unscathed through his adolescence and childhood in terms of emotional or physical abuse and problems in the family setting."

I've been trying to figure out if Emma was enough of a parent-figure to Lizzie to have been the source of her aberrant psychology, if Lizzie did grow up to kill.
If so, why wasn't Emma killed?
Did Lizzie wait until Emma was gone so as to keep her safe from her own rage?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:52 am

Well, I have to say I was very pleased to see the title of this thread. This is what I am currently writing a paper on for my Juvenile Justice class, the subject of "Kids Who Kill". Not just kids who kill their parents though, but kids who kill in general. Signing in and seeing that title made my day, thanks Kat

.

As for Emma being enough of a parent figure to have been the source of Lizzie's "aberrant psychology", thats a very interesting question. How much of an influence did Emma have on the person Lizzie grew up to be? If she was the main care giver, and mother figure, I'd say alot. She was the catalyst for Lizzie's distain and hatred for Abby, in my opinion. Emma saw Abby trying to take over her mothers position, and resented it. Even though her own mother was dead. She may have resented it so much, she tried to make sure Lizzie never saw Abby as a true mother figure. She was Lizzie's "mother", and as such, kept her own mother alive for Lizzie in some small way. She was old enough to have remembered her mother vividly, for her mother to have instilled ideas and values, her own set of morals, and maybe she didn't want Abby "corrupting" Lizzie with hers. Emma did claim in her testimony that things were less cordial between herself and Abby, than they were between Lizzie and Abby. I wonder if it hadn't always been that way.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:03 am

I don't personally think Lizzie had any rage towards Emma. I think Emma was the one person in her life she counted on. Emma switched rooms with her and took the cramped smaller room so Lizzie could have the larger room. She and Lizzie backed each other up when it counted, as with Abby and the half house. They both stopped taking meals with their parents. I think if there was one person in Lizzie's life that provided stability, at that time anyway, I think it was Emma. What caused them to have a falling out later in life must have been something really big in my opinion.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:30 am

So it's seen as a solidarity between the sisters?
Maybe Emma was afraid of Lizzie and Lizzie's potential?
Once Lizzie gained a certain age, she is going to think for herself- no longer be under Emma's tutelage.
If Emma was the parent-figure, wouldn't Lizzie rebel against her?
Anyway, I agree with your other points-

Maybe Lizzie had a dependency upon Emma and any rage Lizzie felt might have been re-directed at Andrew and Abby.
Otherwise- I do wish to say that Emma did finally leave Lizzie.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:50 am

I guess what else I'm asking is if a sister can never really be the parent- and therefore the real parent takes the heat of rage regardless...

john · Post by **john** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:59 am

Respectfully, what is the point here?
I just read a part of a book called "Women Who Kill," which had someting superficial about "Lizzie" in it. I thought the book could be better titled, "Women Who Kill, And The Men That Loved Them Except The Men Are Dead."
Lets pass a little law that says when psychiatrists let people out of jail that the psychiatrists are equally guilty of the crimes they commit, similar to the way they put parents in jail for their kids doings now.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:31 am

P.S.
I had a bunch of stuff that explained about me, and what I think of Emma, and it was evidently lost in computer transition.
Maybe you can find it - limbo to me.
Anyway the bottom line was that Emma is not the real key so she's innocent as far as non legal people would pertrieve (word?). She's probably more guilty to us than innocent though, and I had a lot of reasons as everybody does. Bottom line of all of it was that if Emma had anything to do with it she probably would have tried to bail which she didn't.
I also mentioned that she is interesting, but not the true key, nor are the shoes or the feet.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:36 am

P.S.
Have you ever read "The Mothman Chronicles?"
I want to talk.

Pippi · Post by **Pippi** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:42 pm

Emma was the last surviving piece of the mother she didn't remember, or barely did...same or perhaps similar with her father unless there was tension of some sort. Abby could be seen as the replacement so the rage is still left on her and Emma is seen as the heroine mother/big sister/link to missing loved one lost. IMHO and experience

john · Post by **john** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:04 pm

Huh?
You sound like one of the psychiatrists.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:50 pm

Thanks, Pippi- I did ask for opinions on the Emma-as-Mother syndrome.
Different points of view are helpful.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:11 pm

Yes, thanks Pippi. The Emma-Lizzie relationship is a mystery in itself.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:55 pm

Kat, I guess your question would depend on how much of a mother Emma was to Lizzie. Was Emma more of a big sister/caregiver/friend or was she truly perceived by Lizzie to be her mother at one point? I'm thinking of an instance that I've heard of in my life, though different in details, could it have been similar for Lizzie? One of my friends, who is my age, has only one sibling, a sister who is my mom's age. My friend told me that up until a certain point in her life, between 7 and 9 years of age, she thought that her sister was her mother, despite her real mother being around the house at the time!!! I think it was due to the closeness and caregiving and having babysitting duty that gave her elder sister that title. There was never any rage or rebellion against her when my friend matured, just a lovely close-knit relationship; friends/sisters. All teen angst and rebellion was directed towards her parents.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:40 am

I think at least up to the time of the murders, Emma did stand in as mother to Lizzie--no telling whether that was caused by Emma, Abby, or both, but even before the great dispute Lizzie seems not to have been close to Abby. After the murder Lizzie wanted Alice Russell--Emma's friend, who maybe could stand in for Emma until she returned from Fairhaven. Lizzie had friends of her own living nearby, friends much closer to her in age. (It was Alice she went to the night before, as well.) Reasons for this could range from cold calculation to childlike need.

Also, if Emma suspected deep down that Lizzie was guilty, could she have felt responsible for fanning the flame in Lizzie--encouraging her to hate the wicked stepmother? Maybe it was guilty conscience that drove her from Maplecroft. . .

--Lyddie

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:36 am

I don't think it was a guilty conscience that drove her from Maplecroft because it was quite a few years later after the murders that she left. I feel it was Lizzie's cavorting with those sinful theater people that made prim and proper Emma decide to get away from Lizzie.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:58 am

I don't know, I'm tending to have my doubts about those "sinful" theatre people. Nance O' Neil was a pretty well known theatre actress, and also starred in many films. I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that old story about how "cavorting" with theatre people was considered scandalous. Where did it originate anyway? What proof do we have that it's true? I think even members of what can be considered high society courted and showed their appreciation for those in the theatre. I don't think it was actually the fact that Lizzie was associating with these people, so much as the fact that she was "cavorting" period. I think Emma was a pretty retiring soul. I don't see her as the "cavorting" type. Add this to the fact that Lizzie was always under the scrutiny of the general public, and was constantly being harassed by the neighborhood children, and it's no wonder Emma decided to get away.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:09 am

I was thinking Emma may have seen more than she wanted to see regarding Lizzie and Nance, if the rumors were true.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:05 am

Allen @ Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:58 am wrote:I don't know, I'm tending to have my doubts about those "sinful" theatre people. Nance O' Neil was a pretty well known theatre actress, and also starred in many films. I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that old story about how "cavorting" with theatre people was considered scandalous. Where did it originate anyway? What proof do we have that it's true? I think even members of what can be considered high society courted and showed their appreciation for those in the theatre. I don't think it was actually the fact that Lizzie was associating with these people, so much as the fact that she was "cavorting" period. I think Emma was a pretty retiring soul. I don't see her as the "cavorting" type. Add this to the fact that Lizzie was always under the scrutiny of the general public, and was constantly being harassed by the neighborhood children, and it's no wonder Emma decided to get away.

I don't know if "cavorting" with actors and actresses was considered scandalous but going to the the theater to see them perform couldn't have been much of a scandal.

Victorian Vistas, vol 3, beginning page 734 cites that Edwin Booth, considered by many the greatest actor of his time, as having performed at the Academy of Music in Fall River. He performed on several occasions in the plays of Shakespeare, "Othello" and "The Merchant of Venice". On one occasion the highest ticket price to see Booth was $2.50 (in today's money almost $50.00). I don't think too many mill workers would either care for the plays or to plunk down that sum of money for a ticket. But somebody was buying those tickets.

But having them to your home I think was considered crossing the line.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:20 pm

You mentioned Edwin Booth and Othello Harry, and it reminded me
of something which (albeit peripheral) is at least mildly interesting given Lizzie's apparent enjoyment of the theatre. If I remember my calendar correctly, Booth died just about two days into the proceedings at New Bedford at the age of 59.

Oddly enough, there's a sample of Booth's voice (recorded on an Edison cylinder, ca. 1890) at http://www.lib.msu.edu/vincent/samples.html ... The quality is rather - well, it's just plain-vanilla ugly to be truthful about it...even after some post-download filtering; near the end of the sample though it improves. It's fascinating to hear, that's for sure - and it's free!

For those who do listen (carefully) the clearest part (beginning about sixteen seconds in and running to the end) is the following passage from Othello:

"She wish'd she had not heard it, yet she wish'd
That heaven had made her such a man; she thank'd me,
And bade me, if I had a friend that loved her,
I should but teach him how to tell my story,
And that would woo her. Upon this hint I spake:
She loved me for the dangers I had pass'd,
And I loved her that she did pity them.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:38 pm

Thanks Doug, great find. Though scratchy it was good to at least hear his voice.

Yes, he died on June 7th, 1893. Another coincidence is that on June 9th, 1893, Ford's Theater, where Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, Edwin's younger brother, suffered an internal collapse of 3 floors, killing 22 and injuring 68.

I have seen several newspaper pages covering the Borden trial that mention in separate articles the collapse at Fords.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:27 pm

It's apocryphal but somewhere I had read that the collapse at Ford's ...what was that phrase... "came almost with the first peal of Booth's funeral bell..." or something like that.

Pippi · Post by **Pippi** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:27 pm

It was quite the rage to go to the theatre, however actresses then were not the celebrities they are today. They were considered to be of low class, close to being strippers and porn stars in todays views. Women who paraded themselves on stage in make up, traveling around, working-and such hours! There's more to it than that but anyway...also, Nance did NOT have a good reputation on top of things, she was known to be a party girl and eh hem, was not the picture of a proper Victorian woman.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:48 pm

Well, it might be worth a mention that during the time Lizzie and Nance became friends the period we consider the "victorian" era was actually drawing to a close. Although those raised with these types of values and morals would definitely still live by them for many years to come. I found some pictures of Nance during a search, I did not know if you all had seen them. I posted them under stay to tea.

Since the topic of this thread is kids who kill their parents, I decided to mention a case from Steubenville Ohio, which is very close to where I live. It's close enough that I quite often do my grocery shopping and the like there. It's the case of Brian Nemeth. The reason I mention it is he used a very unique method of murder. He shot his mother five times in the head and neck with a bow and arrow while she lay on the couch sleeping. He claims his mother was an alcoholic and was very abusive towards him. Many people in my family, including my husband, hunt with a bow. My husband, both my sisters, and my brother- in-law have been in Bow Shooting competitions at the local Sportsman's Clubs they belong to. I have shot one belonging to my sister on several occassions.Knowing what I know about them, I think it would take a great amount of rage to shoot someone five times with a bow and arrow. It would also have to be a pretty calm and calculated act. To place the arrow on the bow, pull back the string, sight in on the target, release to shoot, and start all over to shoot another arrow. This case is also mentioned briefly in a book I'm reading currently called Young Killers: The Challenge of Juvenile Homicide by Kathleen M. Heide. What little information I could find on the internet I will post links for.There are some sort of personal ads Brian posted after being incarcerated also. What always struck me about this case was the method of murder used, and the fact it was used inside the home.

http://cl.bna.com/cl/19980722/97534.htm

http://echo.forensicpanel.com/1998/10/1 ... tered.html

http://www.reachingbeyondthewalls.com/briannemeth.htm

http://www.inmate.com/inmates/briannemeth.htm

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:31 pm

I think that might be the reason killed her father and stepmother. Because they weren't taking care of her. Her sister was.

wintressanna · Post by **wintressanna** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:11 pm

hmmm well between me and my sister...our childhoods werent exactly idyllic..i considered my sister to be something of a mother figure to me. I think sisters sometimes have that happen, especially if under high pressure in the household that hampers their natural development. They either draw closer together and develop some sort of parental type relationship or tear each other to pieces. But the thing is, a sister never can be a mother figure because she isnt and because she also needs room to mature so theres always a struggle when it comes time for one sister to draw away and become her own person. And I can see maybe Emma felt held captive into keeping something of their mother alive through her own life, and maybe when Lizzie found her own ways with financial independence and new friends, Emma was freed from that, for better or worse.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:18 am

Thanks, wintressanna. I'm still stuggling to figure out how important Emma was to Lizzie's growth into a possible murderess. There was more in that article about an angry parent making the child into an emotional slave, reflecting their own rage and having total control over the child. I can't quite see Abby in that position. Maybe Abby was killed by proxy?

Anyway,
Here is more from Kids Who Kill Parents:
"That parracide should be committed by quiet mild-mannered children in some cases comes as no surprise to psychiatrists and psychologists...type of personality they call 'aggressophobic.' The aggressophobe does not have homicidal fantasies, but rather appears calm on the surface. The aggressophobe does not indulge in aggressive tendencies because of a deep fear -- which may well be justified -- that if he or she lets go, the force released will be uncontrollable. 'Something is cooking beneath the surface...Since it's not accessible, it cannot be managed. It's subterranean.'

When the internal tension ultimately becomes unbearable and an incident triggers a reaction, the violence is likely to be far beyond a single, killing blow. 'Usually...it's an out-of-control thing. Needless violence, unnecessary violence...When they blow, it's like 10, 12 years of seething rage, and suddenly the overcontrol that's been there is cracked and then there's no control, no gray area.'"

..."In some cases, of course, the child is not inhibited from killing a parent. Indeed, the child may even plan the crime. Although the act is premeditated...research indicates that the children are not criminal 'types.'...the child who killed his or her parent 'felt stuck. They had to take over...some parricides have 'a large element of self-preservation'...parricide becomes a 'reasonable conclusion' in an 'untenable situation.' "

wintressanna · Post by **wintressanna** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:13 am

wow. It may just be rumor but remember Lizzie supposedly had a sense of foreboding soon before the crimes? Could that possibly be acknowledgement of a seething rage, and untenable situation, about to take control?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:00 pm

Hmmm. That's interesting comparing back to Wedneday night.
I hadn't thought of that.
They say those kids who shoot up schools tell someone probably within a week before they do it...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:18 pm

I've read a book lately called The New Predator: Women Who Kill: Profiles of Female Serial Killers by Dr. Deborah Schurman-Kauflin. I know Lizzie wasn't a serial killer, but it does talk about what drives a woman to kill. It talks about their backgrounds, and how childhood experiences and relationships affected them. I found this interesting in reference to Kat's question.

"Interestlingly, siblings were important. Apparently there is a strong bond with a brother or sister , and even though the women indicated that they felt like outsiders within their families, most stated that they shared a special relationship with a sibling. A sense of protection was accorded either by the sibling or to the sibling meaning one would stand up for the other. One prime example, was noted by a female serial killer who recalled attempting to telephone police when her father was molesting her younger sister. For her behavior, she was choked unconcious with a phone cord. Yet this woman stated that she would do it again because she loved her sister. As the eldest she felt the responsibility to watch over her little sister.

The sibling bond seems to come from the comfort that brothers and sisters provided during abusive periods..."

Something else I found might apply to Lizzie:

" When examining the lives of multiple murderers, there is clearly a pattern of inconsistent and harsh discipline and little if any caring..."

"The killers life becomes devoid of social attachment due to self- imposed isolation. Researchers have found that even when the young killer wanted to make connections with other people, the offender would be lost as to how one forms relationships with another person. The offender is not able to sustain any type of relationship for any length of time due to overwhelming feelings of anger, loneliness, and stimulation-seeking. "

"Even though the physical and sexual abuse was pronounced, all seven women cited emotional abuse as their worst experience while growing up. The emotional component took the form of making the child feel unwanted and unloved, and one female suggested that it was so severe as to make her insane. Because of the terrible emotional torture the women were made to feel like the black sheep of the families. They were outsiders within their own groups, and such devastating feelings led to high levels of introversion."

Andrew was not a very demonstative parent, in my mind anyway. He was said to be stern and very strict. Was he emotionally abusive? Emotionally neglectful as Lizzie was growing up? Maybe Emma had most of the care of little Lizzie. Emma mentioned she and Lizzie didn't think Abby cared for them all that much.Emma may have wanted Lizzie to hate Abby from the beginning.This could explain alot about the dynamics of Lizzie and Emma's relationship as they grew up. I think Lizzie and Emma were both emotionally stunted. Emma prefered seclusion, while Lizzie craved attention. But she lacked the emotionally ability to sustain that attention and make it into a relationship. Imagine if you live in a house that consists of five people, two of them your parents. Yet you do not get along with your parents. Who does that leave? Emma and the help. I think this could also explain why Lizzie was generally so fond of the help. It could have been one of the only good relationships she had going for her at any given time. A child needs to talk to someone,and needs attention from someone, even the help.

Emma's testimony at the inquest page 112:

Q. Can you tell me the cause of the lack of cordiality between you and your mother, was it not any specific thing?
A.Well, we felt she was not interested in us, and at one time father gave her some property, and we felt we ought to have some too; and afterwards he gave us some.

wintressanna · Post by **wintressanna** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:34 pm

A few points of speculation in response:

1. Viktor Frankl authored a book detailing psychological and philosophical insights from his experiences in Auschwitz. He says that he noticed that when some form of humiliation or degradation accompanied physical blows it HURT more than simple beatings, for him personally, and as observed in the reactions of others. He recalled an incident the particulars of which I dont recall at the moment, but in which the actual physical force was insignificant but because the humiliation aspect hit him so hard it felt physically painful. Interesting, huh? So it doesnt surprise me that emotional abuse hurts worse.

2. How much Lizzie and Emma were on opposite poles as far as personality especially in regards to socializing may be an indication of interpersonal underdevelopment, a lot more like role play than self actualized people...That is, unless they were truly just opposites, but that is really very rare. Its a lot like If Emma is the quiet one, then Lizzie has to be the attention grabbing one...what if either of them want to be attention grabbing in this circumstance, quiet in that one? Thats more like people who are emotionally independent, not needing to take cues about who to be from the other person.

3. A lack of a satisfactory attachment to Andrew may help explain why there would be hostility towards Abby. After all, their mother died but father the cold stern miser just made a contract with another woman to play "mother". I think there may have been resentment about no one else acknowledging who their mother was, the need to keep something of her alive. And what they object to seems to surround those things that indicate that life had moved on, such as providing for the new wife's family with property etc.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:12 am

" I think there may have been resentment about no one else acknowledging who their mother was, the need to keep something of her alive. And what they object to seems to surround those things that indicate that life had moved on, such as providing for the new wife's family with property etc."--wintress.

Uncle Morse would be the one person who would keep the idea of Sarah-as-mother alive. Emma said he was a very dear uncle of theirs. I see the point in this- it makes sense.
And yes, the stunting of these girls- but I don't know how or why they stayed in place emotionally while everyone else evolved- "moved on" as it's put. They would have to have a reason- a pay-out - something they gained by not growing up.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:29 pm

I think they were emotionally stunted because they were not allowed to grow up. They lived with their parents all their lives, and from all that I've read I'd say Andrew had the rule of the roost. He controlled their money. I think he controlled everything. I don't think they had anything to gain by not growing up, I think they had more to lose by staying in this emotional state. Killing their parents would bring about their emotional, economic, and physical freedom to finally do as they chose. But even after the murders, they remained emotionally under developed. You cannot teach yourself these things, your parents must, and I do not think they ever did.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:22 am

Do you mean they had not anything to gain by growing up?
I'm a bit confused as to your wording.
I can see what you mean about not being "taught."

Dr. Phil asks people "How's it working for you?"
It's a question I am asking of Emma and Lizzie.
They had to be gratifying some need they had to stay stunted. People do stuff, or not do stuff as the case may be, because they get something out of it, however perverse.
Maybe it was Emma only who was getting something. Maybe she enjoyed pitting Lizzie against Abby, because she herself was so retiring in nature? I don't know- that's why I'm asking.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:37 am

[quote="Kat @ Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:22 am"]Do you mean they had not anything to gain by growing up?
quote]

No, what I'm saying is they were not allowed to grow up. They were under Andrew's thumb even in their middle 30's and early 40's. He was said to be very stern and strict. What I meant was, I don't think they had anything to gain by staying stunted, they simply had no other choice given the situation. They couldn't very well move out on their own and tell their father to stuff it. They had more to gain by getting rid of Abby and Andrew and finally being allowed to take control of their own lives. They were still treated as children would be treated. There are alot of clues in my opinion that Lizzie was emotionally stunted, or under developed. Lizzie was 32 years old, yet she still thought she was entitled to be bought a half house simply because her father bought Abby one. How many 32 year old grown women act in this manner? That's a child's pettiness.It's like my own kids worrying about who got the bigger piece of cake.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:59 am

Well, I see what you mean. We might as well say the opposite tho- that they did have nothing to gain by growing up, for the same reasons.
In this dysfunctional family, they gained by staying the same. At least I think Emma did, so maybe here is where the girl's natures cross purposes, and why maybe Lizzie killed and Emma didn't.
Status quo.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:38 am

The last part of the article Kids Who Kill Parents:

"But how does a family with a problem get off the path it's on? Families where parricide occurs are locked into their own drama. They need an outsider to intervene and break the cycle. The dilemma is that our society puts a premium on privacy, resisting the intervention of public agencies in the home....The law...does not recognize a doctrine of premeditated self-defense -- anticipating a life-threatening situation and killing to avoid it. 'Under the law, you must wait until the moment arises. You cannot anticipate...' "

Wordweaver · Post by **Wordweaver** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 4:22 am

Kat @ Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:38 pm wrote:The last part of the article Kids Who Kill Parents:

"But how does a family with a problem get off the path it's on? Families where parricide occurs are locked into their own drama. They need an outsider to intervene and break the cycle. The dilemma is that our society puts a premium on privacy, resisting the intervention of public agencies in the home....The law...does not recognize a doctrine of premeditated self-defense -- anticipating a life-threatening situation and killing to avoid it. 'Under the law, you must wait until the moment arises. You cannot anticipate...' "

And, of course, abusive families become isolated -- it's an essential part of the process.

Do you know about the Jahnke case? In 1982 two teenagers conspired to kill their emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive father. It was one of the first of the abuse-defense cases that I remember. The book was written with the cooperation of the Jahnke kids, and it's a nightmare. It also rings true to me -- unlike the Menendez brothers' defense.

Lynn

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:37 pm

In many ways I hate profiling, because it can oversimplify human nature by insisting that everyone fit into a neat little slot. Nevertheless, many of the observations culled from these books do seem to apply to our girls. And it applies to what I've observed around me. I suppose what sets each of us apart is what we do with ourselves once we become entangled in the pattern. Dysfunctional families do tend to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, and as Lynn points out, Emma appears to have accepted that choice far more readily than did Lizzie. (Emma even embraced the hermit's life in her last years.) Lizzie's resistance is clear in her yearning for travel and social outlets. It almost seems the murders could spring from a passionate claustrophobic outburst. Did she feel she had exhausted all other options? Obviously she hadn't, but such surroundings could certainly drive a young lady to very wrongheaded and desperate thinking.

BTW, Lynn, I love your blog!

--Lyddie

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:57 am

I found this site which is called Children Who Killed Their Parents, and our Lizzie is listed here. So is Constance Kent.

http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/ccorcos/lawh ... arents.htm

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:00 am

Thanks! It's kind of a Bibliography.

I clicked on Lizzie and found only 5 or so links there are active, which surprised me.
Once one hits "Sirius" you can't ever back out of there! Grrr.

Live links were:
Steve Goldman
Biographical Page
The Borden House
Lizzie Borden Murderabillia
The Virtual House