Thayne's theory

[Audrey]

Hello everyone,

I am Thayne. Audrey’s husband.

For some time now, Audrey has been telling me about the Borden murders. I do remember hearing about it and did see the TV movie with Elizabeth Montgomery many years ago.

I recently took the summer off and one evening decided to read one of the books Audrey has. Since then I have read them all and most of the original source documents available from this web site.

First, may I compliment our webmaster? Very visually appealing, easy to navigate and, best of all, an impressive amount of content by even the strictest standards. The fact that it is free is icing on the cake. I am more than impressed.

I wanted Audrey to post my “theory” but she told me I had to do it myself. So, here I am.

The abuse issue really intrigues me. As a survivor of emotional and physical abuse, I can understand the anger and resentment that can be felt well into adulthood. I am not speaking to sexual abuse---that is a complex issue I am not ready to address. Obviously, abuse is subjective. It really does not matter if the standards of that long ago day were met to classify Andrew’s behavior toward his daughter(s) as abusive. It matters that Lizzie probably felt abused. She was ashamed of her home. She yearned for “more”. I do not think she saw her father as the main culprit in keeping her from attaining what she wanted, thus ending a component of the abuse. I think she saw Abby as the puppet master pulling the strings to Andrew’s wallet. I think she was paranoid about what Abby may have urged Andrew to do or not to do regarding his daughters. I am not certain that this was fact outside Lizzie’s mind, but I do think it may have been a factor.

The incest innuendos aside—the triangle of Andrew, Lizzie and Abby bears scrutiny. Anyone care to discuss this?

The dynamics of an abusive household and the possibility of a victim mentality, makes me wonder if Lizzie could have beat a lie detector test while still having committed the crimes. In a way, she almost did. She never “gave an inch” and we did see!

Thank you for allowing me to participate!

Sincerely,

Thayne

[doug65oh]

Welcome to the bunch Thayne!

The scenario you mention is I must say most intriguing - and perfectly plausible. Pray continue..

[Harry]

Hi Thayne and welcome to the forum!

Your theory is interesting. Once Abby was out of the way that would end her influence over Andrew and remove her from any inheritance. Once Andrew is out of the way the abuse ceases and they inherit the fortune which they felt they were entitled to.

I use the word "they" as I think you may want to also consider the triangle of Andrew-Abby-Lizzie as a square, Andrew-Abby-Lizzie-Emma.

Emma, for what ever reason, was the more withdrawn of the two. We don't know of course whether that was from her natural disposition or she was less able to cope with the abuse no matter what form.

I'm not saying Emma was involved, only that she would have been subject to the same conditions as Lizzie. Of course we all don't react the same way.

[lydiapinkham]

Welcome, Thayne, Good topic!

I agree with you on many points: I believe she suffered mental cruelty from Andrew and Abby. Like most abused children, she would have been able to lay any of it at Andrew's door because he was her father, and she would be unable to face the resentment she felt toward him. Therefore, she must label Abby the wicked stepmother. Perhaps when Papa came home, she realized that killing Abby had not ended the misery; hence number two. I really can't believe that this was a premeditated murder. It has all the appearances of one, but many things just don't fit. It's as if a piece of the puzzle is missing. I think she fantacized about it, but I don't think she planned it.

I also agree with Harry that there is a quadrangle here. My take on the matter is a bit different, though. In many ways I suspect Emma was as responsible for warping Lizzie as were the other two. (I do think Abby did her share of shutting out the girls, even if only in response to Emma's early campaign.) We had a thread once about how the girls may have had nothing in common but hatred. Deep down, I think Emma was as narrow as Andrew in her tastes, habits, and personality. She continued Andrew's penchant for frugality after the murder--spending next to nothing and buying no home of her own when she left Maplecroft. She chose the life of a boarder! She may have clucked her tongue more than a few times over Lizzie's extravagance.

--Lyddie

[Audrey]

Perhaps something like this?

[FairhavenGuy]

Hi, Thayne, and welcome.

Certainly if Lizzie had anything to do with the murders there must be some sort of real or perceived emotional abuse, I would think. You've got to figure it wasn't all hunky-dory around the house. And Emma has to figure in somewhere. It's just too coincidental that she headed to Fairhaven for an extended stay, when she hadn't been known to do such a thing before, and two weeks later all hell breaks loose.

Oh, and an unrelated thought.

Could I suggest that you register as a member under your own name? It will be hard for me to keep track of who's who if you're both posting under Audrey's name.

Merely a suggestion.

[Susan]

Hi, Thayne, welcome to the Forum! Interesting theory, being a survivor of abuse myself, I can totally empathize with the victim mentality and what Lizzie might have felt.

I've tended to view the structure of the Borden household as the solar system, Andrew being the Sun from whence the life force comes from. Closest in orbit to him would be Mercury, I see that as being his business holdings, the bank boards he sat on, etc. Next in orbit around Sun/Andrew would be Venus/Abby, I don't think she had as much sway over him as Lizzie and Emma may have felt, but, she would have been closer to the source. Then next in line would be the Earth and the Moon, I think at one point in time that Emma held the position of the Earth with Lizzie in her orbit, influencing her. As Lizzie grew older, I believe she usurped this position from Emma, she seems as though she had some influence with Andrew, may have gotten more out of him. Then Emma came to be the Moon in orbit around Earth/Lizzie. Venus/Abby would have been seen by the two as the closest thing that was blocking direct access to the Sun/Andrew. Does that make any sense or is it too weird?

[joe]

Hi Thayne,
Some of us have speculated on the abuse theory and I have wondered over the years if the girls might have been incest victims. Their profile suggests this may have been the case. This is a subject that deserves more scrutiny. Not only Andrew, but also Uncle John may have been involved. Uncle John could have been the girl's "confessor". As such, might he have felt sorry and decided to end this abuse by Andrew once and for all?
Joe

[Kat]

Hi Thayne!
Welcome!

I agree that if Lizzie killed, then she and her sister (who had to know something) were abused in some way- physically, mentally, psychically, verbally- something.
It's rare that a monster is born- more often *made*.

I also think that any inhibitions against crime might have been overcome with substance abuse.

[Wordweaver]

First, may I compliment our webmaster? Very visually appealing, easy to navigate and, best of all, an impressive amount of content by even the strictest standards. The fact that it is free is icing on the cake. I am more than impressed.

I'm a new member myself, and I agree -- gorgeous site, easy to navigate.

As for the abuse . . . oh yes, it makes sense to me. I think Lizzie may have justified it to herself as self-defense. I was appalled at Victoria Lincoln's take on the epsode of the slaughtered pigeons. According to her, the birds were Lizzie's pets, but Andrew was merely being practical when he killed them himself and brought them in to be cooked and eaten. Bridget Sullivan refused to cook them.

Now, if I recall the testimony correctly, the pigeons aren't identified as pets. But if they were, then Andrew's action could very plausibly have been read as a death threat to Lizzie herself. It was also mental cruelty of the most acute kind.

As I read the situation, Lizzie idolized her father but also hated him -- and projected that hatred onto Abby.

Haven't there been articles on the possibility of incest?

[Kat]

The *Incest Articles* seem to dominate the early 1990's, including specifically the book on the Conference in Fall River, the book Proceedings. I think there are 2 or 3 articles in there exploring the incest theme.

If you don't have the book, one author has been all over the internet with her theory, so she can be searched, I believe.

Her citation is:
"Grenier, Margaret Judge. 'Lizzie Borden: Violator or Victim.' Proceedings: Lizzie Borden Conference. Ed. Jules R. Ryckebusch. Portland, ME: King Philip Publishing Co., 1993. 13-37.
Paper presented at the Lizzie Borden Conference at Bristol Community College, Fall River, Massachusetts, August 3-5, 1992."

[lydiapinkham]

One thing about the pigeon representation in court: the family wouldn't want to present them as pets and provide Lizzie with additional motive in the eyes of the jury. I think they were pets--especially since Bridget refused to cook them: obviously pigeon pie was not regular fare in the household.

--Lyddie

[Kat]

I hadn't read or remembered that Bridget had any comment about the pigeons. I was intruiged, so I searched, checking Bridget at prelim and trial, Emma at inquest and trial and Lizzie at inquest. I searched the witness statements as well. The only references in these sources are Lizzie's.
Here is all the pigeon testimony:

Inquest
Lizzie
82
A. No sir, he killed some pigeons in the barn last May or June.
Q. What with?
A. I don't know, but I thought he wrung their necks.
Q. What made you think so?
A. I think he said so.
Q. Did anything else make you think so?
A. All but three or four had their heads on, that is what made me think so.
Q. Did all of them come into the house?
A. I think so.
Q. Those that came into the house were all headless?
A. Two or three had them on.
Q. Were any with their heads off?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Cut off or twisted off?
A. I don't know which.
Q. How did they look?
A. I don't know, their heads were gone, that is all.
Q. Did you tell anybody they looked as though they were twisted off?
A. I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin I think was very tender, I said why are these heads off? I think I remember of telling somebody that he said they twisted off.
Q. Did they look as if they were cut off?
A. I don't know, I did not look at that particularly.
....

88
Q. How long were you under the pear tree?
A. I think I was under there very nearly four or five minutes. I stood looking around. I looked up at the pigeon house that they have closed up. It was no more than five minutes, perhaps not as long. I can't say sure.

--Was that an author, do you think?

[MysteryReader]

[quote="Audrey"]Hello everyone,

I am Thayne. Audrey’s husband.

The abuse issue really intrigues me. As a survivor of emotional and physical abuse, I can understand the anger and resentment that can be felt well into adulthood. I am not speaking to sexual abuse---that is a complex issue I am not ready to address. Obviously, abuse is subjective. It really does not matter if the standards of that long ago day were met to classify Andrew’s behavior toward his daughter(s) as abusive. It matters that Lizzie probably felt abused. She was ashamed of her home. She yearned for “more”. I do not think she saw her father as the main culprit in keeping her from attaining what she wanted, thus ending a component of the abuse. I think she saw Abby as the puppet master pulling the strings to Andrew’s wallet. I think she was paranoid about what Abby may have urged Andrew to do or not to do regarding his daughters. I am not certain that this was fact outside Lizzie’s mind, but I do think it may have been a factor.


Might this be a reason why neither woman married? They were well into their 30s and 40s (if I remember correctly) and they could have had counseling with their priest/pastor to overcome any abuse issues. A lot of abused women have issues trusting men and perhaps Lizzie and Emma had trust issues and couldn't see getting married to a man who wouldn't abuse them in some form or fashion.

[PossumPie]

Hello everyone,

I am Thayne. Audrey’s husband.

The abuse issue really intrigues me. As a survivor of emotional and physical abuse, I can understand the anger and resentment that can be felt well into adulthood. I am not speaking to sexual abuse---that is a complex issue I am not ready to address. Obviously, abuse is subjective. It really does not matter if the standards of that long ago day were met to classify Andrew’s behavior toward his daughter(s) as abusive. It matters that Lizzie probably felt abused. She was ashamed of her home. She yearned for “more”. I do not think she saw her father as the main culprit in keeping her from attaining what she wanted, thus ending a component of the abuse. I think she saw Abby as the puppet master pulling the strings to Andrew’s wallet. I think she was paranoid about what Abby may have urged Andrew to do or not to do regarding his daughters. I am not certain that this was fact outside Lizzie’s mind, but I do think it may have been a factor.


Might this be a reason why neither woman married? They were well into their 30s and 40s (if I remember correctly) and they could have had counseling with their priest/pastor to overcome any abuse issues. A lot of abused women have issues trusting men and perhaps Lizzie and Emma had trust issues and couldn't see getting married to a man who wouldn't abuse them in some form or fashion.

I think that IF Lizzie was the killer, she had to either be a "sociopath" with no conscience who was willing to coldly and calmly kill her own father to get his money, or she had to have had deep-seated fury towards him. That could have come from a history of abuse verbal, sexual, or physical. Ask yourself: What would it take to kill my own father? Most of us would say "nothing could drive me to that" But Patricide does happen.

[MysteryReader]

I could only see it if: the killer was a child of the father, if the child was a sociopath, or if the man abused said child/killer or other children.