If Lizzie had been hung

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Wed May 15, 2013 5:59 am

Mr. and Mrs. Borden had been murdered, Lizzie was accused of the crime but was judged not guilty. Since then, most people believed and believe she was the killer. I wonder, if she had been judged guilty and had been hung, what would have happened and happen? Would more efforts be made to prove Lizzie’s innocence? The evidences were the same, but a different sentence could have changed --- at least to some extent --- the public psychology and opinions.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Thu May 16, 2013 7:33 am

I think if she had been found found guilt and hanged, that would have been the end of it.

I'm often reminded that "not guilty" and "innocent" are not exactly the same. In the U.S, if you are accused and charged with a crime, you are presumed to be innocent. It is the job of the District Attorney for that state (or the U.S. government, if you're charged with a federal crime) to prove that you are guilty of that particular charge.

When a jury returns a verdict of "not guilty" they aren't necessarily saying "we don't think this person did the deed." What they are saying is that the state didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

So following your suggestion of an outcome...if the jury HAD come back with "Guilty!" then presumably, the judge would have set a sentencing date. During that time, there would have been a campaign to save Lizzie's life and avoid the death penalty. Assuming these efforts failed, she would have been hanged publicly..and what a spectacle THAT would have been!

I can just imagine the 3-ring circus that would have surrounded the hanging of Lizzie Borden. (Can't you just see her stoically climbing the steps towards the noose and frostily declaring "I am innocent of these heinous crimes. God knows the the truth.")

I don't think anyone would have posthumously pursued her innocence, even Emma. I do think, though, that the members of the jury responsible for Lizzie's demise would have been the victim of harassment, stalking, maybe even violence.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Aug 09, 2013 7:22 pm

I don't think she would have been hung, but maybe life in prison. I think the reason they found her innocent was because the jury couldn't believe that very well brought up girl, church goer, Sunday school teacher and from a prominent family good do a such a horrible crime.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:48 pm

YES:

More than likely.

The real reason she was found innocent was because she was.

The State had no case, the prosecution, no blood evidence, the police, no weapon, and the jury, no choice but to find her not guilty.

She may have planned it, she may have let in the killer, she may even had ring around the rosie with a pocket full of posies. It made no matter. They proved nothing. She could only be found innocent.

(unless the maid was a liar)

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:14 pm

If Lizzie had been hung I think that would have been the end of the case.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 6:12 am

mbhenty wrote:YES:

More than likely.

The real reason she was found innocent was because she was.

The State had no case, the prosecution, no blood evidence, the police, no weapon, and the jury, no choice but to find her not guilty.

She may have planned it, she may have let in the killer, she may even had ring around the rosie with a pocket full of posies. It made no matter. They proved nothing. She could only be found innocent.

(unless the maid was a liar)

I think that some of the reason she was found innocent was because the police really didn't do a good job at investigating. I mean, they hadn't ever really had anything like this happen in Fall River, so they didn't really didn't know what to do. So I think that the reason why they had no blood evidence, no weapon, no nothing is because they didn't know how to deal this kind of crime. I would have found her innocent to if I was presented with the same stuff. The police really didn't do any investigation.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:50 am

Allen wrote:If Lizzie had been hung I think that would have been the end of the case.

I believe the contrary would have happened: the discussion about the case would have been even more active.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:26 am

I believe much of the controversy would have died down following a hanging. Some cries protesting her innocence would have lasted for a while but probably would not have continued for the next one hundred or so years. Not many know the name of Bathsheba Spooner today. Not only was she hanged in Massachusetts on July 2, 1777 she was also pregnant at the time. If a woman was pregnant and the baby had already started moving, which Bathsheba claimed it had, the law said they had to wait until the child was born. The examiners claimed she was indeed pregnant but that there were no signs of movement from the fetus. Her hanging was delayed pending these examinations. But they didn't stop the execution. Not many people have heard of Bathsheba day.

Roxalana Druse was sentenced to hang in New York in 1887. Some believed she was innocent even in the face of all the evidence of her guilt. There was a great debate in the media about whether she should be executed. Some news accounts likened executing her to murder. And her execution went so badly, the initial drop did not kill her she was forced to hang there and suffocate before the witnesses, that the state of New York began looking for other methods of execution refusing to hang anyone else. It had taken her 15 minutes to strangle to death before the horrified witneses. They settled on the electric chair. I'm willing to bet not many people have heard her name today either.

In England there was a woman named Eliza Fenning who was only convicted of attempting to murder her employers. I wrote a story about Eliza for The Hatchet as well that was called "The Proof Is In The Dumplings". It was found that the dumplings that were served for dinner were poisoned with arsenic. All of Eliza Fenning's alleged victims survived the attempted poisoning. Prominent people of the time spoke on behalf of her innocence because there was no conclusive evidence that she had done it. She protested her innocence to the last minute she was hanged on July 26, 1815. Thousands of people attended the hanging, and thousands followed her funeral procession to the graveyard. Her funeral had been paid for by donations that were made to her parents. But nobody knows Eliza's name today either. So, in my opinion, if Lizzie had been hung that would have ended the story. Not many books, and certainly no active forums, exist for any of the other women who were hanged in the nineteenth century for committing some equally heinous crimes. Most people cannot even name any without first looking them up. Why would Lizzie have been any different?

In my opinion, the reason is because people enjoy a good mystery better than an unhappy conclusion.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:07 am

Given the prevailing public attitude about hanging a woman in Massachusetts in 1892, there is no way it was going to happen. The police knew that when they investigated on August 4th. Judge Blaisdell and Knowlton knew that at the inquest and at the preliminary. Everyone knew that at the grand jury and at the trial, and if the prosecution's case seemed less than adequate it may have been due in part to the exclusion of Bence's testimony and Lizzie's inquest testimony, as well as the general knowledge that no woman was going to be hung in Massachusetts for murder. They were going through the motions. If Lizzie had been hung, it would be nothing less than a miracle.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Aug 10, 2013 1:59 pm

True, there is evidence that attitudes leaned toward not wanting to hang women. Lizzie probably never would have been hanged if she had been convicted. Contemporary accounts of women in Massachusetts who committed acts of murder show that they never saw the gallows. The practice was more often to declare them insane. The evidence of insanity was often simply that they had committed murder in the first place. The governor could also commute their sentences to life, pardon, or they remained on death row the rest of their lives. Between 1866- 1899 there were only 24 executions in the entire state of Massachusetts. In the history of the state there are only 345 recorded executions, 26 of which were for witch craft. Between 1866- 1899 New York executed 108 people, Texas 221, and Pennsylvania 185. It seems Massachusetts was hesistant to implement the death penalty in general and not just for women.

Reading the history of women that were hanged provides very good reason for a special reluctance to execute women. Massachusetts gained notoriety for a history of wrongful convictions of women for witchcraft and murder. The Salem witch trials for example. Among the women who were hanged their executions were thought in some way to have produced the death of an innocent person. Such as the hanging of Bathsheba, who pleaded her belly and was not believed, when afterwards she was found to be five months pregnant. There are other cases that suggest this as well. The publicly botched spectacle that took place in New York with Mrs. Druse probably didn't lend a favorable view of executing a woman.

So in all probability if found guilty Lizzie would not have been sentenced to hang. But if she had, I think that would have been the end of all the controversy. Because most people cannot name many of the others who were executed through out history. Bertha Manchester was murdered in her home with an ax in Fall River in 1893. Nobody talks much about Bertha because her killer was caught and convicted. The Borden murders were not any more brutal than any other murder to have been remembered except for the mystery that surrounds them.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:44 am

She would have never been hanged. Women were looked at differently back then. They were frail creatures, cunning when it came to catching a man, but not capable of something like murder. They were not even allowed to be present when horrific things were discussed b/c they may 'swoon' When a woman did murder, she was some kind of mental defect, a demon. We look at women today in a different light. We don't comprehend their role back then. I think even with overwhelming evidence against her, an all male jury may have still declared her not guilty...BTW, she was never found "Innocent" she was found "not guilty"

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:11 am

Franz wrote:
Allen wrote:If Lizzie had been hung I think that would have been the end of the case.
I believe the contrary would have happened: the discussion about the case would have been even more active.

I think you might be right. I would have loved to be the fly on the wall listening to the conversation.

I'd have to get the popcorn and such to listen to it. The back and forth of she's a churchgoer and Sunday school teacher. A well brought up girl to the her father a tight wad, wasn't giving her money, he wasn't well liked, even by his daughters and the like. That would have been a great conversation to listen to.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:04 am

PossumPie wrote:She would have never been hanged. Women were looked at differently back then. They were frail creatures, cunning when it came to catching a man, but not capable of something like murder. They were not even allowed to be present when horrific things were discussed b/c they may 'swoon' When a woman did murder, she was some kind of mental defect, a demon. We look at women today in a different light. We don't comprehend their role back then. I think even with overwhelming evidence against her, an all male jury may have still declared her not guilty...BTW, she was never found "Innocent" she was found "not guilty"

The word "innocent" is (or was) it used in a verdict? or only "guilty" and "not guilty" were and are used?

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:09 pm

Franz wrote:
PossumPie wrote:She would have never been hanged. Women were looked at differently back then. They were frail creatures, cunning when it came to catching a man, but not capable of something like murder. They were not even allowed to be present when horrific things were discussed b/c they may 'swoon' When a woman did murder, she was some kind of mental defect, a demon. We look at women today in a different light. We don't comprehend their role back then. I think even with overwhelming evidence against her, an all male jury may have still declared her not guilty...BTW, she was never found "Innocent" she was found "not guilty"
The word "innocent" is (or was) it used in a verdict? or only "guilty" and "not guilty" were and are used?

INNOCENT is a term that is often mistakenly equated to a plea of "not guilty." Innocence is not a legal term, but rather a philosophical, moral, or religious expression of nonresponsibility.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:30 pm

PossumPie, what I wanted to say, is that: if there are only "guilty" and "not guilty" to be used in a verdict, then, even the most innocent accused can be only found "not guilty" in the court, right? If a jury makes a "not guilty" verdict, it means for me that the prosecution part didn't prove the defendant's guilt, so "no guilty".

Knowlton and his team didn't prove Lizzie was guilty.

Now in the forum we are discussing the case, in order to establish - who knows if it would be one day possible - if Lizzie didn''t have nothing to do with the double murder (totally innocent), or somewhat involved in the case: hired a murderer, or she herself killed Andrew and Abby. I don't think there is some difference between our opinions about the concepts "innocent" and "not guilty". Correct me if I am wrong.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:34 pm

A 'not guilty' verdict could be rendered to someone who is innocent. But it also could also mean the prosecution did not have enough evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:50 pm

Innocence is a moralistic term, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, they either succeed or fail to prove guilt. In the legalistic sense, not guilty is the failure to prove guilt for whatever reason. That need not be a failing of the prosecution's case, the jury makes the determination and they can be unpredictable.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:30 am

Allen wrote:A 'not guilty' verdict could be rendered to someone who is innocent. But it also could also mean the prosecution did not have enough evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury.

Yes, Allen, I don't think differently.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:44 am

I think both sides here, those who believe that she didn't do it, and those who believe that she did it, will agree that given all of the facts that we know The police, the prosecutors, and at least one of the judges botched and bungled the case so horribly that she had to be found not guilty. That does NOT mean that she was innocent though. That is what we debate here in this forum.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:01 pm

The case was a political hot potato. Nobody wanted Lizzie convicted, public sentiment was absolutely against convicting a woman of murder. It would have been career suicide for anyone proving Lizzie's guilt. Alice Russell was called a traitor in an article written some time after the trial because she came forward with the dress burning information. Pillsbury, the Attorney General, was supposed to have prosecuted the case, but he begged off and dropped it in Knowlton's lap, and Knowlton tried to hand it back unsuccessfully. Dewey charged the jury upon the evidence, something he should never have done, and there was no mistrial sought. Either Robinson or Dewey should have recused himself, but neither did. The reasons for excluding Bence's testimony and Lizzie's inquest testimony were very weak, but those decisions were allowed to stand without objection. I strongly suggest reading Robert Sullivan's "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" for some insight into the legal aspects of the case. The deck was absolutely stacked against conviction.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:41 am

Yooper,

Yes, I will read that book. In a nutshell, WHY was the state so opposed to convicting (and subsequently dealing with a possible death penalty) Lizzie? Was it because of Victorian mores? Gender roles? Was it a class thing (she might not have had a working toilet, but she was still the daughter of Andrew Borden, and though dead, that represented a lot of power and wealth.) Or did it harken back to the Salem witch trials---a black eye in the history of the state? Thanks...

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:51 am

It was the legacy of the Salem witch trials.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:05 am

You are talking about Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the country. This is the state that let Willie Horten, who committed murder, go on weekend passes. He subsequently raped and assaulted a woman while on pass from prison. When caught and convicted in Maryland, the judge refused to allow him to go back to Massachusetts because "they may let him out yet again..."

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:27 am

Oops! Wrong thread.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:46 am

Some opinions on hanging female murderers from last year. How time flies!

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:28 pm

Yooper wrote:Given the prevailing public attitude about hanging a woman in Massachusetts in 1892, there is no way it was going to happen.

Agreed. If Lizzie had been hung, she might very well have been hanged. (OUCH!)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:15 pm

Hi Constantine! Nice to hear from you! Yes, it's the old proverbial argument, isn't it? Pictures are hung, people are hanged! Either way, they are dead! I agree, I think there was a cultural repugnance about females being subject to capital punishment in the 19th and early 20th century. This is why I feel that the Massechusetts Governor may have intervened if an appeal failed.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:14 pm

To further clarify, corn is raised and children are reared, although that might be open to discussion these days.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:17 pm

It always was. "Raised" for "reared" is one of those older usages that became obsolete in England but remained in use in the U.S., thus being erroneously branded as (shudder!) Americanisms. ("Gotten" is another.) It's perfectly good English and always was.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:24 am

I think even if she'd been found guilty and hung, people would still be talking about te crime. Some people be saying she got what she deserved and other people saying she is innocent.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:57 am

Yes, I think you're right in a way. It would always be one of the all-time classic American murders. However, it's the fact that she was found not guilty that keeps people arguing about whether Lizzie got away with it or not, IMO.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:46 pm

Constantine wrote:
Yooper wrote:Given the prevailing public attitude about hanging a woman in Massachusetts in 1892, there is no way it was going to happen.
Agreed. If Lizzie had been hung, she might very well have been hanged. (OUCH!)

Thank you Constantine and Curryong for the correction.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:36 pm

Oh, plenty of English speaking people say 'hung' in the sense of capital punishment, Franz. Don't worry about it. As far as Lizzie is concerned I think we are all agreed it would be extremely unlikely that she would have faced the hangman's noose. Somehow or other Lizzie would have had her sentence commuted.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:40 pm

I was not correcting anyone. I'm no pedant. I was just making a joke about another use of "hung," in case anybody missed it.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:37 pm

I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. (For Franz)

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:01 pm

debbiediablo wrote:I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. (For Franz)

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:28 pm

Just looked it up in the dictionary. Actually, "hanged" is the older form. This is one of those verbs that went from regular to irregular. "Wake" is another. ("Waked" is older than "woke.") "Dive" is on its way. (Both the older "dived" and newer "dove" are used.) The other way around is of course more common. (The past of "climb" was once "clomb" and still is dialectally.)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:45 pm

I can't stand 'dove' for dived, sorry, I just can't! For some reason it just sets my teeth on edge.

MysteryReader · Post by **MysteryReader** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:19 pm

She dove in sounds better than she dived in...

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:11 am

That Fateful Day in August arrove
A deadly plan so quickly controve,
The killer connove
For Bordens deprove
Of their lives, neither victim survove.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:07 am

debbie, you are very talented! I really think you should write your little pieces as a paying hobby, would a card company be interested, perhaps? 'Smile'.

Could other posters, including you debbie, take a look at Jeffery's theory on the other thread and say what you think of it, please? I only read a bit of it when I joined the forum and re-read it over the last day or so. Of all the theories it does have several credible points, I think.

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:12 am

debbiediablo wrote:That Fateful Day in August arrove
A deadly plan so quickly controve,
The killer connove
For Bordens deprove
Of their lives, neither victim survove.

At risk for losing the treasure trived
Her father face with a hatchet she clived
And as workmen ate pears grown in the grived
Burnt the will in the kitchen stived...

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:10 am

We sound just like Chaucer!

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:21 am

Curryong wrote: Could other posters, including you debbie, take a look at Jeffery's theory on the other thread and say what you think of it, please? I only read a bit of it when I joined the forum and re-read it over the last day or so. Of all the theories it does have several credible points, I think.

It would be a lot easier to envision Morse whacking Andrew in hot blood as a revenge-motive killing, than it is to see him working out a multi-person premeditated multiple murder with benefits for Lizzie and Emma but nothing much really for him, and involving a meticulous alibi for one killing that depends largely on luck to stand for the other-- all the while leaving other conspirators with no cover at all, really.

And of course it is absurdly optimistic to engineer a capital crime with four principals with at least three different motives; the expectation would seem strong that someone would talk and put the others on the scaffold... The fear would be that at least one of the assassins would find they lacked the will for it-- what would the other three have done if Lizzie balked at the hurdle, or worse yet injured Abby without killing her? Compare with the Booth conspiracy, where one guy succeeded, one guy tried, and one went and got drunk instead... and they didn't really care if they got caught, they were True Believing...

Almost makes more sense to posit that Morse, Davis, and Howe planned and executed Andrew's killing while Lizzie, unbeknownst to them coincidentally killed Abby in a rage.

For that matter why would Davis and Howe be willing to do Morse' wet work for him without having anything much of an alibi or reward arranged for themselves?

However we are somewhat forwarder for this theory? It would seem that Kat has nailed down that Morse lied under oath about the horses, suggesting that he might merit more serious consideration... I have always wondered if someone else could possibly have collected the alibi information and passed it to him.

I suppose he might have lied out of concern to conceal something else entirely about the deal. Or perhaps if Andrew had financed them in part and without paperwork, he may have hoped to keep them out of the estate and for himself?

BTW the thing about his knowing the streetcar worker's number is not all that strange to me-- has everyone seen this type of hat? It would be very easy to notice and remember:

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 11:08 pm

It's very true about the Booth conspiracy. He enmeshed too many in his plans and didn't choose his primary fellow conspirators carefully at all. I think the hat does show that someone could quite easily remember such a number. Thanks for putting it up! Much of the so-called evidence about Morse's involvement in the horse trading is newspaper reporting, however. I prefer the testimony.

We've seen so many conspiracies discussed over the years on the Forum and of course they've fallen at the hurdles you've pointed out! Do people keep their mouths shut for the rest of their lives when there is nothing in it for them? No! Room for blackmail, also. The trouble with Jeffery's theory too is that the Swansea farm remained with the Borden sisters. There was no discreet transferral to Morse a year or so after the trial. A lot of trouble for nothing! As you say, all alibis, movements etc of the principals would have to coordinate precisely or it would unwind. Again, a bit like the Lincoln assassination.