I have always wondered why Lizzie never spoke at her trial. I mean, if I didn't do something, I'd be singing like a canery.
Having said that, I am thinking that maybe she was being blackmailed by the killer. I mean, why go thru a trial and possibly of jail if you didn't do the crime?
Is it possible that she thought her lawyers would handle everythig? Did she think they were that good?
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
She may have had confidence in her lawyer's ability to get her acquitted who knows. Maybe she had some word that she'd be acquitted if we go with some idea of a conspiracy. And did they think in that time that there was an idea that a person of class did not commit such crimes?
Interesting about your idea that she may have been blackmailed, especially if she had been in on the crime. Another reason to go through a trial if you are not guilty may be because a person is covering for someone. Some thoughts out there that OJ Simpson may have done that.
Not sure how a lawyer would advise a client back then in Fall River, but today we know that for the most part a lawyer would probably advise us not to testify in our behalf. There would be so much pressure on us, and our words could be twisted during cross-examination. We may say things in such a way that we would appear guilty. A good prosecutor knows just how to manage a witness, so it would be too risky in many cases to take the stand.
She may have been "in on the crime" but I am also thinking that she may have walked in on the crime as it was been committed.
If you remember, she was in the barn, then she was in the kitchen then she was outside in the backyard eating pears. She might have walked in on the crime.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
snokkums @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:50 am wrote:She may have been "in on the crime" but I am also thinking that she may have walked in on the crime as it was been committed.
If you remember, she was in the barn, then she was in the kitchen then she was outside in the backyard eating pears. She might have walked in on the crime.
I do believe she was in the barn eating pears up in the loft and may not have been able to see if someone entered the house, so she very well could have walked in on someone. If so I'd think she would be covering for that person rather than that person blackmailing her. If she was not in on it, then I guess I'd wonder what would seem drastic enough for her to go along with blackmail, since she seemed to have a good reputation in Fall River. Although it's just my thinking and anything is possible, so your idea is something to think about too.
Yooper wrote:Based upon Lizzie's inquest testimony, allowing her to testify at the trial would have been the kiss of death as far as the defense was concerned!
I agree with you on that Yooper, she just came across as cold and uneffected, but I think it was because she couldn't let herself be (in her eyes) made a spectacle. I think she was alot like her father, self possessed and guarded. What went on in their home was not what either of them would display in public.
Lizzie would be the last person a defense lawyer would allow to take the stand. Just read her Inquest testimony. Knowlton and Moody would have had ten months to go over it. Knowlton, IMO, was unprepared for her at the Inquest. There are so many missed follow up questions to some of her answers.
And there simply was no reason to put her on. Several newspapers at the time said the defense should not have even put on a case at all, the verdict was that predictable after the prosecution's case.
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
I wonder why they did put her on trial, they could have just as easily made THAT kind of case against Bridget. If Lizzie really did go to the barn, then thal left her in the house alone with Andrew. Had Lizzie gone down to the basement, even for a few minuets. she could have done away with Mrs. Borden and slipped back outside. Bridget knew the layout of the house, possibly how best to avoid running into any of the family members. She was also allowed to leave the house after the murders, and wasn't searched. So why Lizzie and not her?
I think that the crime was so horriable that they had to put someone on trial. And she just happened to be the one they picked. Besides, everyone else had an alibi and people had seen them and what they were doing. All they had with lizzie was her word, not that she would lie, but noone could back her up.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
It might be argued that Bridget had the opportunity to kill Andrew as well as Lizzie did, but Bridget was seen outdoors washing windows while Abby was killed. Bridget also lacked motive, Lizzie did not.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
I don't think they could actually determine and exact time of death, not like they could today. Minutes would count, times when no one saw Bridget, she couldn't have been in someones sight every minute. She was having a bad morning out side throwing up and it was hot and miserable, and being told to wash windows? If she went back in to beg off doing the windows, under those circumstances might that be enough to push her over the edge? Ok, I know, why would she be carrying and an axe with her, lol
Certainly, no one was watching Bridget at all times while she was outdoors, but her story generally holds up. She talked to the Kelley's maid for a time and she was seen by Mrs. Churchill. Her motive is still lacking, having to wash windows while not feeling well pales by comparison to Lizzie's motive(s). Bridget would have had to either involve Lizzie or commit the murders without her knowledge. For Bridget to commit the murders without Lizzie's knowledge is more far fetched than an intruder committing the murders.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
I know that's true, but I really just can't believe Lizzie did it, or maybe I really don't want to. Maybe had she poisoned them and got caught, I can see that. But the brutality and loss of control it took to kill that old woman just makes me shudder, how could she with her upbringing and the strict morality of the time, even allow her to concieve of such a thing? But then how could a jury of her peers find her not quilty and then the whole town pretty much finds her quilty and punishes her? Did they know something we have yet to uncover? I must be getting tired, I'm starting to babble! lol
Women have committed murders both before and after the Borden case. The means and motives are many and varied and they were committed regardless of the prevailing social climate, Victorian or otherwise. Lizzie had nothing but time on her hands, she was 32 years old and living with her parents. A household of four adults with three adult women present still required the services of a maid, so I would assume that the Borden daughters were not to be relied upon to help Abby with the household chores. Who in the world had more time on their hands to dream up a tour of Europe, a murder, or a moon shot?
Robert Sullivan's book "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" deals a bit with the reluctance of the public to see a woman given the death penalty, which was mandatory at the time for first degree murder. Apparently it was easier to live with the hypocrisy than see a woman hang, even a double murderer.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
That's all true, Yooper. It's just hard to come to terms with the How she chose to do it. Given all the time she had to think up a way to go about it. She could have helped her down the front stairs and then maybe hit her on the head if it didn't get the job done. Andrew might have suspected her, but there would have been alot more doubt. It would have been easier for him to not believe her capable of such a thing, she was after all his daughter. How could you think your own daughter guilty of such a thing? But then if she had done it and gotten completely away with it, we wouldn't be here.
I think poison was plan A. It might have been easier to kill Andrew and Abby while they were in bed if a hatchet was to be used and if both murders were planned ahead of time, perhaps plan B. I sometimes wonder if Morse's visit forestalled a plan to do just that on the night of August 3rd. This left plan C, which is the murders as they took place, if we can still call it a plan.
If we start with the apparent rage evident in Abby's murder, that was an awful lot to keep bottled up without others being aware of it. We see impending doom in Lizzie's conversation with Alice Russell the night before the murders, but nowhere else. Either something came up suddenly between Abby and Lizzie on the spot the morning of the murders, or Lizzie was adept at covering her true feelings. I tend towards the latter because of the marked change in attitudes after the Whitehead house transaction and the fact that others alluded to Lizzie being at odds with Abby. It wasn't just spur-of-the-moment, but there seemed to be something imperative involved, perhaps Andrew planning a will, acting as a trigger.
If Andrew had been spared, he may not have pursued action against Lizzie as the guilty party, but he didn't necessarily have much to say about it. If she had been acquitted under these circumstances, how could Lizzie be sure Andrew wouldn't cut her out of his will as a result? Andrew was willing to drop the investigation of the mysterious robbery, but that did not cost him his wife or preempt his estate planning and his decisions regarding his family. I think it would be pretty difficult for Andrew to ignore or deny that Lizzie was involved in Abby's murder, he was more aware of the turmoil within the family than anyone.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Andrew being aware of the hostilities makes you wonder why he even let the girls know about any plans to change the will or anything else he intended to do that would impact Lizzie and Emma. He had to know how that would be taken by them. He also knew it wouldn't be a good thing.
I suppose Andrew could either tiptoe around the women, or he could put his foot down and let them know it was his money and his life and he would do as he damn well pleased! Emma and Lizzie had choices, they could move out individually or together and make their own way if they didn't like living with Andrew. If that was not an option and they chose to continue living with Andrew, they might have kept their mouths on a leash and made an effort to at least try to get along with Abby. Andrew was nearly 70 years old and he wasn't going to live forever, sooner or later Lizzie and Emma would be able to live the way they wanted. Either someone didn't want to wait for that, or something else compelled immediate action.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
That does make sense, if Lizzie had gone to see a lawyer before the murders, maybe she was checking out her options, and didn't like what she was told. Maybe Andrew had threatend them with what he could do, if they didn't try to get along and bring peace to his house. Had Andrew died first of natural causes, wouldn't that make Abby the one to get the most of what he had? That would have thrown a match into the powder keg!
It is a possibility that Andrew delivered an ultimatum, to the effect of: "Either get along with Abby or I'll make a will minimizing your inheritance". That would have tended to make Andrew the primary target. It would also imply that there was either no current will, or a current will did not reflect that sentiment. As I understand Massachusetts inheritance law at the time, Lizzie and Emma would have inherited the bulk of Andrew's estate if he died intestate, and Abby would have received the proceeds of a percentage of the estate for the rest of her life, with that principal going to Lizzie and Emma upon her death. So, in a completely practical and dispassionate sense, if Andrew died without a will, there was really very little compelling Abby's death, other than hatred, if the murderer was aware of all the facts. The problem would have been in killing Andrew with Abby in the house, and the same penalty prevails for either one or two murders, they can only hang you once, so at that point, why not kill Abby, too? There are endless possibilities for conjecture and they all juggle the implications to a degree.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
From what I understand, Abby was surprised from behind and was possibly just starting to turn towards whomever when she was struck the first time. Correct? Ah geez there's just too many ways that could have come about! If they had had words, then Lizzie would have had to go get the axe and returned. Would she then have creeped up on Abby? or if she was in deed in a rage, wouldn't she have been more likely to come charging into the room swinging the axe? Well, anyway, to then come to the conclusion that if she killed once she might as well go for another, that being the father that she was supposed to have loved........how cold-blooded can you get!?
Well, women deprived of indoor plumbing can get downright ugly about it! "We want bathrooms...ya hear me?...BATHROOMS!" chop...chop...chop
Just the time between the murders indicates it was a cold-blooded, calculated act. A deliberate and determined murderer could have probably gone from the bedroom door to where Abby was killed in maybe four quick strides, hardly two seconds time. A determined adversary can cover ground at an astonishingly rapid rate, most people don't realize how quickly that can happen. Abby could have been standing anywhere in the room and retreated to where she was killed, too. It's really anybody's guess, there are many possibilities.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
Well, lol that explains Andrews untimely death! Lizzie wanted a bathroom to die for! Your right about Abby though, there could have been a whole lot more that went on, she could have even been too scared to utter a sound.
My best guess is that both of the murders, specifically, wielding the hatchet, took very little time. Probably just a matter of seconds. Something I've found interesting is an apparent lack of blood spots which might have dropped from a hatchet as the murderer walked away from the murder scenes. It is debatable how much blood should be found on the murderer, if any, but there was certainly some on the hatchet. The hatchet might have been wiped off on something near the bodies, or carried away in a rag or handkerchief, but nothing was ever discovered or mentioned about a blood trail leading away from the bodies. I think generally men are less concerned with leaving a mess than women, and the lack of a blood trail occurring in both cases seems almost deliberate. Given the number of blows and the violence involved, both murder scenes were relatively tidy, if we can imagine the term might apply.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
I would bet there was alot more blood scattered around on the floor that the carpet hid, and then with everybody walking around checking out Abby, just got lost. If they'd had Luminal back then I think it would have told a different story.
The blood upstairs might have dried quite a bit by the time anyone would have looked for it. I don't know how dark the carpeting was, but that might have hidden it somewhat if it was relatively dark. It could be that no one thought to look for it, and it was there all the time. By the time someone thought to look, maybe the carpet had been compromised by blood being tracked in and out of the room. Luminol would have shown blood or a lack of blood on garments as well as on the floor.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
shakiboo wrote:She was having a bad morning out side throwing up and it was hot and miserable, and being told to wash windows? If she went back in to beg off doing the windows, under those circumstances might that be enough to push her over the edge?
If she was that sick, why was Abby having her do windows anyway? Surely, there's something else less strenuous she could've found for her to do, given how she was feeling.
If I had been in Bridget's place, and feeling as sick as she was, I would've been far from thrilled with the prospect, but not to the point of hacking two people to death.
As complicated as it might have been, if Bridget was in on it in a passive role, being outside while Abby was killed gave her an excuse as being unaware. It would depend upon when Morse first mentioned hearing Abby tell Bridget to wash the windows, before or after he might have heard someone else mention it. If he hadn't actually heard that, and he did remember it happening at a different time than Bridget, maybe Abby didn't ask Bridget to wash the windows. Heck, maybe Abby was planning on chopping Lizzie up and Lizzie just got to the hatchet quicker!
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
