Lizzie: No tears, No grief

[she_done_it]

At trial, Bridget repeatedly denied she found Lizzie crying when she was called down from her attic bedroom the morning of 8/4. Defense lawyer George Robinson maintained that at the inquest, Bridget had testified that she was crying. I don't recall any time during which she testified that she was more insistent about anything. (See Widdows and Koorey's "The Trial of Lizzie Andrew Borden," Book One, pp. 307-08.) I gladly give Bridget the benefit of the doubt here in light of the fact that no one else testified that he or she witnessed Lizzie in tears. In fact, when Adelaide Churchill was asked, "During any part of this morning after you came down there [to the Borden house]," did you see Lizzie in tears? Adelaide flatly replied, "I never saw any tears" (ibid., p. 318). What's more, no witness so much as stated that Lizzie appeared to have been crying at any time.

Some might argue that the fact that Lizzie shed no tears isn't proof she wasn't in mourning. Granted, except that (the hated Abby aside)
what wants explaining is that Lizzie never verbally expressed grief over her father's gruesome murder, either-- a man she supposedly loved. Add to the mix that after she "discovered" his body she never once looked in on him to see if she could help him in any way. Recall that at the preliminary hearing when asked, "Did you notice that he was dead?" she answered, "I did not know whether he was or not" (See W and K's book on that hearing, p. 419.) "You went into the room?" Lizzie was asked. "No, sir," she replied (ibid., 420).

Go figure: This church-going women, much involved in church activities, including teaching Sunday school, didn't have the charity, let alone a daughter's love, to look in on her father dead or dying on that sofa, butchered.

[snokkums]

I think that Lizzie was'nt prone to emotion. Or at least that's the impression I always had of her. I also feel that she might have been in shock over what had just happened. Also, too, New Englanders aren't prone to go blubbering about. They seem to keep their emtions in tack.

[she_done_it]

Let me make a correction. Mrs. Marianna Holmes, a woman who had known Lizzie since childhood (she had attended school with her daughters) was asked by Andrew Jennings, the Borden family lawyer, " . . . when she was viewing her father [in the sitting room in a casket], did she shed tears?" "She did," Holmes replied (Book Three, pp. 1383-84 in Widdows and Koorey's "The Trial of Lizzie Andrew Borden").

Be that as it may, I still believe she was the murderer because way too much points to her guilt. Those tears may well have been crocodile tears or tears of remorse for having felt compelled to kill him for fear he would know she murdered Abby, or perhaps for fear that Abby's gruesome death would be the death of him.

In connection with what I stated above about her religious life (women of her sort have been referred to as "Protestant nuns"), I ask: Where in all the Borden literature is anything said about her reading the Bible, or quoting the Bible, or speaking of Jesus? When she was in prison and ON TRIAL FOR HER LIFE she had "the leisure to work her way through most of the novels of Charles Dickens and Sir Walter Scott. On this last weekend of her trial, she turned to lighter fare, the 'summer novels' [defense lawyer] Robinson had given her" (Cara Robertson's The Trial of Lizzie Borden," p.231). No one I know of who visited her while incarcerated ever testified that she read the Bible while in her cell--not even Emma. If Emma or any other supportive visitor had observed her doing so or heard her speak of spiritual things, you can best believe they would have made mention of it when testifying.

I think Lizzie's involvement in church activities merely afforded her escape ,as someone said, "from that narrow and cheerless house."

[LABRhush]

While I do believe her church connections gave her an outlet, I also believe her heart was in much of the charitable work. It is also stated that she read religious literature brought to her, I believe, by Rev. Buck while she was awaiting trial in Taunton. After the aquittal she did a long list of very Christian acts, many of which she did anonymously, and her funeral which she planned... religious in nature, Bible versus she herself chose ect. While I do believe she was guilty, I also believe she was a Christian woman dealing with a guilty conscience. JMHO ☺

[she_done_it]

Buck did bring her religious literature, but that's not to say she read the stuff. You say you believe she was a Christian woman dealing with a guilty conscience. But, seriously, what truly Christian woman would have whacked her father and stepmother's heads with a hatchet again and again? And I repeat what I posted before: This Christian woman, who supposedly loved her father and claimed to be innocent, never looked in on the bloodied man to see if she could be of any assistance to him. Not so much as once. No innocent son or daughter would have failed to do so To me, Lizzie's failure to do so speaks volumes.

[she_done_it]

snokkums: You overlook the fact that, tears aside, I stated that Lizzie never (to my knowledge, anyhow) VERBALLY expressed grief over her father's death. If you read the testimonies of the immediate responders (Bridget, Churchill, Bowen, Russell), you'll see that none of them spoke of Lizzie's expressing grief verbally. "Oh, my poor, poor father! Who could have done this to him?! Who could've been so depraved?!" She never said anything of that kind. On page 69 of Joseph Conforti's book on Lizzie's trial, he states: "Throughout the day police were struck by Lizzie's seeming inability to grieve. No one described her as distraught. Her demeanor did not change from August 4 through her arrest and appearance in court." Contra Conforti, there surely was some change in her demeanor during that long period, but nothing of great significance.

[LABRhush]

I think she didn't offer him assistance simply because she knew he was dead because she killed him. And as far as what Christian woman could do whatever fill in the blank, it depends on the situation. My personal belief after daily research since 2012, is that there is a lot more to this story than the surface. I do not believe she was a psychopath or sociopath (she doesnt display any of the markers) who snapped like a monster and killed plp w an axe... though that makes a better Halloween story. Suffice it to say, I think any one of us has the ability to kill if pushed hard enough into the wrong corner. MHO

[she_done_it]

You say, "I think she didn't offer him assistance simply because she knew he was dead because she killed him." But of course! What you're overlooking here is that she was claiming INNOCENCE, and an innocent person wouldn't have failed to look on him and offer whatever assistance they could. Psychopath? Sociopath? I don't think so, either. I think the women was profoundly repressed and frustrated over the course of many years, then snapped. There was a last straw--whatever it was.

[LABRhush]

Well we agree on repressed. But claiming innocence... it's a good thing she didn't go over to him and get blood on herself considering the police spent a week straight in her house looking for a dress w blood on it. That was the 'smoking gun' they were so wrapped up in finding, along w the murder weapon of course. Her being completely clean benifited her defense greatly... though it would be viewed differently now. Victorian women were seen as complete wilting flowers incable of handling something so gory. They were allowed, if not expected, to faint at the slightest overwhelment... much less a loved one w their face hacked off. Would it be viewed completely different today? Absolutely. It was a very different social, political, and cultural climate for women in the 1890s as compared to today.

[she_done_it]

LABRhush: She needn't have gotten blood on herself if she'd looked in on him. She could have determined if he were still alive by merely looking at him. She wouldn't have had reason to touch his head, or touch him at all. Don't understand why you question my saying she claimed to be innocent. Of course she did. As for the murder weapon, that may still be in the house somewhere (between the walls?). Prosecutor Hosea Knowlton spoke of that possibility when he gave his closing argument.

[VictorianFan89]

It would be pretty obvious Andrew was dead -- half of his face was hacked off. No need to touch him or feel for vitals.

As far as the blood evidence, I think it was due to the fact that if someone were standing over a prone individual and taking a hatchet to their face, logically there'd be a lot of blood on their clothes. The fact Lizzie was spotless might have told the police that she discarded the bloodied clothes (if I recall correctly, Bridgette or someone else said that they later saw her burning a dress with what she insisted was red paint.)

Emotionally? Well, I'm with Snokkums on that one. Some people just aren't prone to outward bursts of grief, and considering this was New England in 1892, I imagine she would've been taught how to compose herself in periods of great turmoil. I mean, Bridgette herself saw the body but she didn't faint, did she?

[LABRhush]

Very valid point about Bridget, VF89! I agree with all of that. It was also always pointed out she wasn't crying over the entire ordeal, well niether was Emma. They were taught to have decorum, I would imagine. Guilty or not, you can't gauge an individual's way of grieving.

[justice#123]

Hello, just joined and this is my first post. I hope I am not hijacking this thread; it is close to my idea. About a week ago I watched the Elizabeth Montgomery film for the second time after many years. It is still a very good film and it shook me up. It also got me searching and reading on the Internet about the murders. Apologies for the long post. I am trying to generate conversation: here is my theory.

To my mind, Lizzie Borden did it, no question. For me, the real question is why. I largely accept the money motive/explanation – that Abby stood to inherit if Andrew Borden drafted a will in her favor, and that money was more or less by rights Lizzie’s and Emma’s. Also, Lizzie bought the house on The Hill after the murders, so there is clear evidence of her wanting and using the money.

My problem with the money motive was the ferocity of the crime. The face of Andrew Borden was unrecognizable, ‘mass of meat’; Abby had 18 slashes, the first being fatal. Overkill, frenzied beyond belief. Just for a house on The Hill? I don’t know. Lizzie wanted to use poison; I realize that; I think she did access or find something and try and poison them; the mutton soup had nothing to do with the sickness of Abby, Andrew and Maggie. It was arsenic or some such poison. She may have not had enough or it would take too long and she had reached a breaking point of one kind or another, running out of time. Emma was out of the house, soon to return – I think that is very significant in terms of timing on the murders. But given all this it would still take a lot to commit the murders like that so violently, in broad daylight. What if the victims fought back, escaped, etc.? If she was discovered in the act, or lacked the strength or will to carry it out after starting?

Killing with the hatchet so viciously did not seem to make sense to me; it would require real hatred, rage, very deep and very personal. Enter the ‘abuse’ ‘incest’ argument. I dutifully read through a little bit of that. Incest solves that problem just like that and I accepted it for a day or so. It also explains the seemingly unbreakable bond between Emma and Lizzie, as well as much of their retired, ‘asexual’ spinster behavior. Then I became cynical again. I am not saying that Lizzie and Emma were not victims of a stifling, confined upbringing by a dominating miser. So, yes, emotional, psychological abuse or damage, probably. But sexual? I think it is more of a long shot, just conjecture by folks who want to make Lizzie more relatable, understandable, in contemporary terms. “Me too” her. Of course, we will never know. I am open, but skeptical.

The ‘answer’ is simple: Lizzie Borden had the same stubbornness, arrogance and strong will that her father had. A sense of entitlement. There was an ongoing bitter clash of wills. This was public knowledge in the town. Andrew’s killing of the pigeons I think had a traumatic effect and fueled her anger. I question how imaginative, sympathetic, or complex a woman she really was. We don’t see much original or repentant in the rest of her life. No confession, no breakdown, no finding God – could you just keeping living on after doing that? Not be haunted by memories? I think she planned the crime, did whatever it took, and just moved on. Calmness = denseness of personality, temperament. That explains the calm, collected demeanor – that was all there ever was. Nothing deeper. She was her father’s daughter. Perhaps the murder was originally about just eliminating Abby – Andrew was more spontaneous, possibly because she so successfully dispatched of Abby. She may have been feeling pretty good about that, her confidence increased. She was laughing about it, at least about something according to Maggie. She was not distressed in any way, seemed in good spirits that morning, after killing Abby. (or was she in a kind of fit?) I wonder would she have killed Maggie, had Maggie come on the scene at the wrong time? I say yes.

I think Emma knew Lizzie was the killer. The reason Emma did not fear harm from Lizzie was because she knew Lizzie had what she wanted; she was not a threat to Emma after she had the money, her house, her freedom. (I wondered why Emma defended her and stayed with her so long; shared abuse is the best explanation of the bond; my point is the money motive covers that too.) Over time the bond between Emma and Lizzie weakened, not just due to Lizzie’s elaborate drinking parties and actress/lesbian relationship. Again, I firmly believe Emma knew Lizzie was guilty and was horrified but not a little understanding as a co-beneficiary of the act. It probably was a pretty horrible life on Second Street with Andrew and Abby. Unjust, regardless of the level of ‘abuse’. But eventually Emma had to get out, away from her life with Lizzie, which was probably as bad, or worse.

I have read through this forum – I know many of you are experts who have done a lot of research – that is why I am covering ground so quickly; I am assuming we all know the basic details and facts very well, and that my comments can be readily understood.

Thanks for reading; please share any thoughts if you like.

[mbhenty]

Good introduction Justice #123.

I have a portrait of Lizzie Borden on my wall. It's one of her commemorative plates issued by the historical Society many years ago. Have had an interest in Lizzie for 40 years or more. Even authored several works about Lizzie. But every time I walk by that Portrait of Lizzie on my wall I am tempted to take it down and store it away. After all I wouldn't place the likeness of Jeffery Dahmer or Charles Manson on my wall. So why is she still there? Because I don't think she did the killings. To me she is a Victorian lady of eminence and distinction, whether depraved or misconstrued, who lived in the city I was from and who once lived next door to me. And for all my studies I have never come up with any concrete proof that she did it.

But like you, I have my convictions, right or wrong, and in the past have freely voiced them on this forum. That's the fun of being a member here. Hopefully you will enjoy your stay here and most, including me, welcome your input.

Now down to business.

What happen to the Ax?

What about blood splatter?

And most importantly, how do we explain the short time between Bridget seeing both Lizzie and Andrew, going up to take a nap or rest, and the time Lizzie called her down. There just was not enough time for Lizzie to wash up, dispose of the weapon, etc.

Of course that is what keeps us all interested in this case. The questions The dead ends Unsupported evidence or proof etc. etc.

That's not to say that she was not a co-conspirator... Just that she is not guilty of the actual deed.

Interesting to say the least.

[Lee]

Lizzie knew her father was dead, she made sure of it. Having Brigit get a Doctor wasn't for her FATHER, it was for HER. She needed a fix. And she never asked for the police...LOL. This would be an innocents persons 1st instinct to get the law over the house with their guns and protection. Maybe they can catch the perp while they are at it. It obvious why Lizzie didnt cry. Why would she? She was finally free and rich. She was happy and laughing her way to
the bank.