I think Lizzie was guilty but....

[LABRhush]

I find it interesting, in the camp of "she did it for money", that we pretty much accept that she killed Abby 1st so that the $, in turn, returns to Andrew's family. AKA Lizzie and Emma. Only because, when you think about it, Lizzie "found" her father 1st. Several plp were made aware of his passing far before Abby was discovered. I know by modern standards we can tell time of death, to an extent, but would that not have been a gamble in 1892? Fingerprints were in their infancy at this time. Dr. Bowen, though later embarrassed, initially thought Mrs. Borden died of fright. It seems to me that if $ were the sole motive Lizzie would have proclaimed to find Abby first, or at very least both at the same time? Yes, they realized from the congealed blood later... but if it was all for money is that a risk she was willing to take? I can't believe, as a proper Victorian lady, she had any notion of congealed blood and time of death evidence. Does it not seem more a convenience of timing rather than diabolical plan for money? I believe the inheritance was a side note, a benefit, but not the true motive. Thoughts?

[camgarsky4]

Very interesting question. Since the 'money motive' is the single biggest argument that Lizzie was a conspirator in the killings, its good that we keep pushing on it.

I suspect the answer is that since Lizzie killed Abby first, then in her mind, Abby died first. Case closed. Doubt that she gave much thought to the sequence of discovery. Also, the reality was that since Andrew's killing was likely earlier than she had planned when she killed Abby, she really had no choice but to discover Andrew first since he was on the first floor. We'll never know what her original game plan for Andrews killing was since he came home multiple hours early and threw her actions into a react mode.

I have a long car ride tomorrow....will give your question more thought.

[Marchesk]

Good question. But as suggested by camgarsky4, it's quite possible Lizzie was forced to change plans. Maybe if Bridget had gone out shopping, Lizzie would have had time to arrange things differently. Or maybe she was planning on burning the house down. If it looked like they both died in an "accidental" fire together, I assume the inheritance goes from Andrew to Emma.

[Albanyguy]

"I assume the inheritance goes from Andrew to Emma."

Since Andrew died without a will, his estate was split evenly between his two surviving children, Emma and Lizzie (the estate would have been the equivalent of about $14 million dollars in today's money).

[phineas]

If the murder was not premeditated but a rage explosion at Abby then she would have killed Andrew only because she sort of had to. Then it was never about inheritance but taking a potential beneficiary out of the mix. I think it WAS premeditated but also that motive is murky. Money is a great side benefit but I am not sold either that it was the primary driver.

[LABRhush]

Couldn't agree more Phineas. I believe it was premeditated and that the money was a side benefit rather than the motive. Because if it were me, and 100% for money, I would not have chanced the sequence they were found in. I know Andrew came home early, but she knew to expect him for the noon meal at latest. And there was time after Abby to leave the house and create an alibi, even with his coming home early. She knew he was coming home regardless, so I've never been in camp... whoops gotta kill dad too (because she had zero foresight). But thats only because I believe it was premeditated rather than a snapped moment. I guess whichever side you stand on alters your perspective for the "whys".

[phineas]

That’s the first time I ever thought about this LABRhush. That we assume she killed Abby first so Andrew’s money would pass to her and Emma. “Only because, when you think about it, Lizzie "found" her father 1st.”

Suddenly finding him first sticks out. I’ve never totally bought sophistication from Lizzie on inheritance law. I’m with you that she can’t have had much idea about forensics pinpointing time.

Lizzie had to have thought the police would think they’d died within moments of each other. Because once time of death entered the picture, making the lull between killings critical, you suddenly get Lizzie’s constantly conflicting answers on where she was and what she was doing.

I bet she was shocked that the random passing maniac story didn’t wash. Her plan was just to have a normal morning (aside from 9:30) with no need for an alibi until those last critical moments before 11.

I’m not sure Lizzie was the sharpest hatchet in the shed. I don’t think order of death occurred to her. It was all “father’s money” so of course it would have to come to his darling girls. I see her viewing Abby as an appendage of Andrew and not really a person in her own right. Imagine if the order had been reversed through circumstance. There’s a Colombo gotcha moment.

[LABRhush]

Not sharpest hatchet in the shed...! I love that! It's funny because I'm literally licensed in criminal investigation and have studied this case for years and the idea of "finding father 1st" only occurred to me about a month ago. This story just has so many preconceived notions we don't think to question. And I agree Phineas. She had to be shocked completely when the police didn't buy the madman in the streets theory. Who can blame her, with the way the Victorian Era viewed women... especially Protestant ladies of station. We see how that plays out in the end! Ha. But I think you've hit the nail on the head with she went in only concerning to alibi herself around 11. Abby was "out with a sick friend" after all. If the order was reversed... omg I can only imagine. That'd flip half the theories like a penny!

[camgarsky4]

"I don’t think order of death occurred to her. It was all “father’s money” so of course it would have to come to his darling girls. I see her viewing Abby as an appendage of Andrew and not really a person in her own right."


Completely agree Phineas.

[phineas]

That’s so cool you’re licensed in criminal investigation LABRhush. Curious what you think Lizzie’s biggest mistake was, that points to her guilt. Sometimes she acts so idiotic I get hung up in thinking she has no consciousness of guilt. But I think she did it.

[LABRhush]

Hey Phineas! I have a lot of reasons, like most of us here, but my main reason is due to behavioral research into teenagers who commit parricide. I know Lizzie was a grown woman, but she lived very similar to a teenager. She lived under her father's roof with his rules and had just about no chance of moving out due to Victorian standards. It's the same for teen offenders of parricide. They believe they have little to no options. They can not simply leave. Let's dive in. 1. Nearly 90% of offenders are previously abused. I'm not opening that can, just stating facts. Of those, when the offender is female, she's likely been sexually abused. Not always. This can apply to males too. There is also extensive evidence that when both parents are killed, one might be the abuser while the other isn't, but is also killed out of their failure to prevent said abuse.. 2. These offenders generally have lead a very clean life. They are not involved in criminal behavior before or after the homicide. Often, they are the good kid. They overwhelmingly do not reoffend. 3. They do not typically have a history of mental illness or violence. Once again, not always, but we are viewing Lizzie through the lens. 4. In most cases of parricide it is a desperate move to escape and only happens after the offender has become so stressed they can no longer tolerate conditions. Its viewed as self defense, rather than murder. 5. This also leads to the killings not being criminally sophisticated. There ya go. 6. Afterward the offender tries to block out the homicide, rather than revelling in it. They feel extreme guilt, but also like there was no other alternative.
I feel this is a very good representation of Lizbeth, who I do believe guilty but not a sociopath or psychopath. I believe things were coming down to the wire and she became a desperate animal trapped in a corner. As far as the abuse, that's up to opinion, but I think she is a near perfect example of female offenders of parricide. I like to compare her case to that of Gypsy Rose Blanchard. Premeditated murder under extenuating circumstances.

[twinsrwe]

Excellent post, LABR!!!

[camgarsky4]

LABR -- that is so funny you posted that today. I spent this morning googling and reading parricide by daughters and read much of the same information. I do think her older age adds a very unique aspect to the profile. So far I'm not finding much on grown child parricide, but agree with you that she lived almost like an older teenager.

Their older age may have also accentuated a fear that their father would live into his 80/90's. The combination of 'no chance to move out' with a self-centered belief that "I deserve to live a better life" may have blended into a deadly cocktail for the Borden's.

[LABRhush]

Thanks Twins! And we must have been on a brainwave Camgarsky4 ha. What's really funny is I launched off into a speech where I didn't once answer Phineas' question. Woops! Well, once again, I know Lizbeth tripped up in a lot of physical ways, but I think her biggest mistake was assuming the police would look for some maniac in the streets. I really think she, and the others involved, (yeah, I said it) didn't think the police would even consider a woman of station capable. On top of that, she wasn't wilting flower enough for the police, who didn't care for her "cool demeanor" that day. Which completely disregards she could have been in shock, and though guilty... I think she was in shock. They played up her wilting flower in the trial, much to her benefit! What do ya'll think was her biggest mistake?

[camgarsky4]

I'm super new to this puzzle, so I'll answer with what I think her long term mistakes was.....purchasing Maplecroft within weeks of the trial. I haven't read Parallel Lives yet, and it might prove this perspective silly, but I wonder if she had lived humbly, low key and in mourning for 6-12 months after acquittal, if River Falls would have accepted her innocence and her post-trial life could have been far more socially satisfying? Her motive was thought to be 'want of a better lifestyle' and then she goes and potentially validates that suspicion by immediately and dramatically upgrading her lifestyle.

While she might have been in mourning during her time in jail, I would think to the general public, the mourning period began when the trial ended.

[twinsrwe]

Don't ever feel what you have to say, may be silly, Camgarsky4. I think you brought up a very good point here. Lizzie was acquitted on June 20, 1893, and the girls purchased Maplecroft on August 10, 1893. That's less than two months. Seems like the girls were in a bit of a hurry to leave their past behind them.

BTW: It’s going to take you awhile to get through Parallel Lives. It is a massive book, which contains 1,179 pages and weights almost 7 lbs.

[phineas]

It must be free floating in air but I also researched parricide this week! I found a pdf which is a bit old but the statistics were fascinating and I thought worthy of discussion. No time tonight to unpack this but here’s the document. Look forward to any thoughts. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mf.pdf

[camgarsky4]

Interesting info.....

Borden-centric stat.....Table 2 shows that 40% of murders committed by offspring are >30 years of age. Higher than I would have suspected and potentially fits with our favorite crime. Be fascinating if they added a table which tried to quantify motive statistics for murder.