Did Emma really believe Lizzie innocent?

[Harry]

I was re-reading the 1913 Boston Post interview with Emma at the Rev. Buck's house. In it Emma makes these remarks:

"... The day the crime took place I was at Fairhaven on a visit to friends, I hurried home in response to a telegram, and one of the first persons I met was Lizzie. She was very much affected.
"Later, when veiled accusations began to be made, she came to me and said:
" 'Emma, it is awful for them to say that I killed poor father and our stepmother. You know that I would not dream of such an awful thing, Emma'
"Later, after her arrest and during her trial, Lizzie many times reiterated her protest of innocence to me.
"And after her acquittal she declared her guiltlessness during conversations that we had at the French street mansion. ..."

Lizzie seems to have to keep reassuring herself that Emma believes her. Was it something that Emma said, or was not Emma convincing enough in telling Lizzie that she believed her?

It reminds me of the ending scene in the made for TV movie when Emma asks "Lizzie, did you kill father?" and the movie ends without Lizzie answering

[Robert Harry]

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much." I think you are right. Why ever would it be "necessary" for Lizzie to keep insisting on her innocence. But the more interesting question is, why does Emma stress this so much in speaking to interviewers. It lends credence to the suspicion that she is trying to convince them (on behalf of Lizzie?) My opinion is that Lizzie did it, Emma knew it, but there was some kind of a "pact of silence." I think that Emma, for some reason, found it in her own interest to maintain the belief of innocence.

[Yooper]

I would expect an innocent person would need to proclaim their innocence only once, then focus on trying to find the real murderer. There should be no need for continued iterations of innocence unless there's something to sell. This assumes Lizzie originated the exchange and offered the information without prompting.

The more I think about this, the stranger it seems. Lizzie's first proclamation of innocence to Emma should probably have put her out a bit, but it may be forgivable for Emma to ask anyway. The second time it should have made her angry that Emma would need reassurance. There should be no reason for a third time. This from the perspective that Emma prompted the incidents.

[SteveS.]

I agree that this is a very weird interview........one pronouncement of innocence should of been enough no matter who initiated the inquiry in the 1st place. I could NOT imagine having to ever tell my sister more then once that "I am innocent" in a situation like that. If she continued to ask me I would take this as she didn't believe me and if I continued to pronounce my innocence then I would be trying to cover up my guilt. The content of this interview is interesting but I wish we could know why Lizzie had to pronounce her "innocence" to Emma so many times.

[Yooper]

Maybe Lizzie was the needy one, she may have needed reassurance of Emma's support. This begs the question; why would Lizzie disbelieve Emma's first affirmation of her belief in Lizzie's innocence, if indeed Lizzie was innocent?

I can see a couple of possibilities. If Lizzie was innocent, one proclamation of that would be enough. For Lizzie to have to continue to reaffirm the fact would indicate a disbelief on Emma's part. As I said earlier, there should be no third time, most innocent people would take the initiative to part company at that point rather than continue to live with distrust.

If Lizzie was guilty, she might tend to tolerate a less than completely positive affirmation on Emma's part, or she might be suspicious of Emma's sincerity. If Emma's affirmations of a belief in Lizzie's innocence were convincing, then Lizzie was in some doubt of her ability to sell that particular bill of goods.

The part that bothers me the most is where is the righteous indignation on the part of an innocent person that the real murderer was not being pursued? Both Lizzie and Emma had a stake in that, but especially Lizzie. It was her name that had been dragged through the mud.

[SteveS.]

That has always struck me as odd also. That neither Lizzie or Emma seemed to have any "righteous indignation" as you put it. After Lizzie's aquital both Lizzie and Emma seemed to have just dropped it as if it never happened. I know I would be very outspoken about finding my parents real killer. I'd have been all over the FRPD to continue with the investigation of the case. I'd want justice done both for my parents sake and to clear my name. Like everything in this case it's just circumstantial but their silence after the aquital speaks very loudly to me of knowledge of guilt.

[Yooper]

From Harry's original post:

"And after her acquittal she declared her guiltlessness during conversations that we had at the French street mansion. ..."

Emma's actions should speak louder than her words. She backed Lizzie up all the way, from the inquest through the trial. If Lizzie was innocent, there should be absolutely no need for further reassurance from Emma.

[doug65oh]

It's interesting to note too: If Emma felt that Lizzie truly was "guiltless" (as you say Yooper, the two had maintained Lizzie's innocence of the crimes for ten months and more) wouldn't that logically eliminate any need to discuss the subject again, regardless of circumstances?

[patsy]

Interesting question, and I wonder what those who knew Lizzie and Emma personally would think about Lizzie's need to protest as much as it appeared she did.

If I had been in Lizzie's position and knew that many people still thought I was guilty, I'd also have to think that my sister, no matter how much she stated her belief in me, would not be able to be 100% sure. If I were innocent it would frustrate me so much that I would probably need constant reaffirmation of her belief in me just to ease that frustration.

[Stefani]

I agree with Patsy. If I didn't do it I would keep saying it to everyone. One denial to me would sound like I was confident. I would be a bag of nerves if I were suspected and I was innocent. Lizzie relied on the police to do their jobs. Unfortunately, they were not good at that~

[Yooper]

If I were in the same position, presumably innocent and thought to be guilty, I would be all over the police to find the real murderer. If I had no confidence in the police, and had the means, I would hire a private detective. The private detective Lizzie and Emma hired shortly after the murders seems to have disappeared right after the dress burning, for some reason. Maybe he had done his job well and found the murderer.

It is interesting that twenty years after the fact, rather than protest that the murderer was never caught, Emma finds it necessary instead to apologize for Lizzie in the interview. Still in defensive mode after twenty years.

[Stefani]

Yes, but you are speaking and thinking like a 21st century person who feels the need to take more control of your fate than did the unmarried women of the 19th century.

Lizzie was not supposed to appear aggressive or that might figure in to her guilt. Her behavior at the trial should point to her societal responsibility towards her defense. She is to sit there, remain silent, react as a woman, and let the men do their jobs.

For her to have protested publicly her innocence to the police or take an active hand in proving her innocence other than the way she did might have backfired and made everyone think that she was "mannish" and "aggressive" and thus capable of murder!

[Yooper]

What did it matter after the fact? She couldn't be tried twice for the same crime, but the protestations of innocence continued after moving to Maplecroft. If the accusations of guilt truly drove her to continue reaffirming her innocence, why continue to play the victim? Why not have Emma pursue the matter if Lizzie didn't want to appear aggressive? Rather than snivel and whine about being victimized, why not get up on her hind legs and deal with it? Just the attempt would have slowed the disbelievers down a bit.

[Stefani]

Because tongues were wagging and gossip was only just beginning. Remember Lincoln's book? And the stuff written in the de Mille tome about what was "said on the streets"?

Lizzie was demonized even after being acquitted. It didn't matter one whit to some of Fall River that the court had deemed her innocent.

She was accused of everything from killing cats to stealing the underwear off of dead friends.

[Yooper]

Then what did she stand to lose by pushing for a solution to the crime?

[doug65oh]

Okay, let’s think about this for a moment. The century might indeed be the trouble. Yooper has stated his opinion, only to be taken to task and reminded that his is a modern 21st century viewpoint directed toward a middle-aged late-Victorian spinster. The contention, rightly or wrongly, is in essence that ‘women simply didn’t behave that way.’ Okay, fine – point taken. But yet not far above we have this: “Lizzie relied on the police to do their jobs. Unfortunately, they were not good at that.” I have to wonder if that contention – again, right or wrong – isn’t the product of a pair of 21st century eyes looking back at a late Victorian murder investigation. Police science and forensics in general are evolutionary by nature, are they not? Most science is like that, isn't it? We did not make one giant leap to the moon for example in a single great step, but by a series of small and quite often uncertain steps. The process was gradual. In time, the science came along. We need only thumb through Dr. E.S. Wood’s 1905 volume to discover what a difference 13 years made. By then the most basic tenets that are today second-nature to virtually any trained policeman had begun to come to light.

It just seems to me patently silly to suggest that the police department of 1892 did not do its job merely because their practices might not measure up to our understanding of police and forensic sciences today.

[Yooper]

Well, as far as women behaving in a predictable feminine fashion as dictated by the Victorian Era, Lizzie didn't seem to exhibit the prescribed behavior immediately after the murders, according to those to whom it made a difference.

[diana]

Well, as far as women behaving in a predictable feminine fashion as dictated by the Victorian Era, Lizzie didn't seem to exhibit the prescribed behavior immediately after the murders, according to those to whom it made a difference.

By "those to whom it made a difference", do you mean the police? They certainly indicated in their reports that Lizzie did not behave as they would like.

But Charles Sawyer, who was pretty much the first outsider on the scene, said she was "apparently grief-stricken" and that "when they came down and reported that her mother had been killed, she apparently went off in some kind of swoon or hysterical fit..." (Inquest testimony)

Mrs. Churchill described her as "distressed" and Alice Russell found her "dazed" and said, "we intended ... not to leave Lizzie. We knew the state she was in". (Inquest testimony)

Their testimony does seem to depict Lizzie exhibiting somewhat typical Victorian era female behavior.

[Yooper]

Charles Sawyer, Mrs. Churchill, and Alice Russell didn't need to be impressed one way or the other by Lizzie's behavior, they weren't trying to investigate a murder or find a murderer. It was up to the police to decide who was suspect, and they weren't overly impressed by Lizzie's behavior. For some reason it was something other than what they would ordinarily expect under the circumstances, given a Victorian Era female. If Lizzie was capable of behaving in an "unusual" fashion in one instance, then she is capable of "unusual" behavior in any instance.

Lizzie did not need to lead the charge to find her parents' murderer, it might have been done at her insistence by Emma, her attorney, or any number of her friends.

[SteveS.]

That was part of my point also Yooper....that Lizzie and Emma (the proper Victorian ladies that they were) could have persued the matter after Lizzie's aquital through their lawyer or private detectives. I mean for goodness sake, it was their father that was killed and right in their own home. I agree they were part of the Victorian Era but DO NOT FORGET they were also from good old Fall River Yankee stock and murdering someone's loved one is just not forgotten so easily or tolerated. Women form the "Hill" in Fall River might have been refined but they weren't weak and wouldn't hide behind petticoats when push came to shove.....just look at Fall River's history.

[Stefani]

I think that the police investigation was at times incompetent by both 19th century and 21st century standards. Just remember the fuss about the handle disappearing, the notes lost in a coat jacket, the inability of most of the police to remember what Lizzie wore, the ineffectual searches, the disregard for several suspects who might have provided leads, etc. It seems, much like the Jon Benet case, the police were in way over their heads here and allowed all manner of folks to traipse around the crime scene, thereby ruining evidence.

Remember the burying and digging up, what two or three times, of the last effects and clothing?

While there was no DNA, no fingerprints, and no detectives on the force in Fall River, they were not quite happy to have the Pinkerton Detective on the scene (hired by the Borden sisters I might add). So Lizzie and Emma were doing what they could to find the killer. And spending money to do so.

[Yooper]

I have no way of knowing what standards were in place concerning forensics in the 19th century, so I can't say if they did a good or a bad job at the time. Science has come a long way since then, but human behavior hasn't changed. Victorian society may have dictated that women weren't supposed to be violent or commit murder, but that didn't mean that women didn't actually commit acts of violence or murder. A trained observer can tell when a person is lying to a relatively high degree of success. That was true then as well as now. People who weren't habitually dishonest in some manner were probably not very effective liars. I expect it would be a lot harder to fool a cop than a casual observer.

Police work was much less reliant upon hardware back then. Burying the clothing is an example. I don't know what good the clothing would do the investigators, given the tools they had to work with. They had no way to refrigerate anything effectively, so blood soaked clothing would have to be disposed of after it was examined.

The Pinkerton detective hired by the Borden sisters seems to have finished up right after the dress burning incident. I expect he had found the murderer at that point. No one seems to know what he found out, for some strange reason.

Sooner or later you have to ask yourself why all of these trained observers, police and detectives who dealt with people under stressful conditions and who knew pshaw from shinola, all seemed to come to the same conclusion about the perpetrator in the Borden murders. The rest was a dog and pony show.

[Stefani]

They weren't trained observers. They were little more than constables who walked the beat, arresting drunks, and keeping the peace. The police force was not equipped, trained, or organized to deal with such a sensational murder or murder scene.

That said, there were other municipalities that did have detectives in their ranks.

The Pinkerton was the detective. There were no others, as far as I know, that worked on the case. And Pinkertons were very well known for being thorough. Just remember the HH Holmes case.

[Yooper]

Wasn't the Pinkerton Agency responsible for bombing Jesse James' mother's house and killing a baby?

So there was no crime in Fall River other than the occasional drunk? I thought there was an incident of breaking and entering at the Borden house prior to the murders. Didn't the police name Lizzie as the responsible party for that crime? Maybe Lizzie had made a name for herself with the police department.

[stargazer]

If I were Emma, I can imagine lying awake at night wondering "How did Lizzie escape being killed ?" "I wonder if the maid had a role ?" Emma did eventually get her own place. They never spoke again after she moved out ? Must have been a doozie of a tiff. Emma would never have told anyone "Yes, she did the deed" because it would stir up a hornet's nest.

[Yooper]

Those are valid questions from Emma's perspective. Emma would have known if the household was at some critical breaking point also. Emma may well have had her suspicions, and those based upon a more intimate knowledge than anyone else.

I've wondered what might have come between two sisters, who had spent their whole lives together, that would justify the severity of the split between Emma and Lizzie. A disapproval of Lizzie's new lifestyle comes up a bit short. That doesn't really warrant a cessation of communication between them, does it? Emma may well have disapproved of Lizzie entertaining theater people, and it might warrant Emma vacating the premises if she didn't want to be associated with that, but that focuses on a lifestyle, not an individual. To stop speaking focuses on the individual.

I don't know what there might have been to gain by Emma telling people that Lizzie was guilty after the trial. It would have done more harm than good.

[snokkums]

I always think that someone who tries so hard to convince that they are innocent, that they are really quilty. And they are more trying to convince themselves that they are innocent.