Lizzie Borden Society Forum

NancyDrew wrote:What I find interesting, and what keeps me coming back to this murder is what I call "The Borden paradox." On the one hand, all evidence pointed Lizzie. There was no one else that could have committed the crime, given the evidence. From the very first observations of police officers in the house, she was suspected. It was absolutely logical that she was charged with murders of her father and step-mother.

Okay, so given that, now we begin with the trial. Here comes the paradox. After arriving at the only possible conclusion (she did it) we are then presented with lawyer, judges, and jurors who did everything they could to make sure she was acquitted. Key evidence was barred, facts were distorted, and the judge himself should have been charged with misconduct after his speech to the jury, in which he all but ORDERS them to find her 'not guilty'.

WHY DID THEY EVEN BOTHER CHARGING HER? The entire trial was nothing more than a show for the public...a farce, a spectacle, a pretense of truth-seeking. The whole thing was rigged from the start.

The three paragraphs that I quoted from you say it all for me as well, Nancy. Everyone here would do well to re-read those 3 paragraphs from Nancy. She has struck upon the 2 main issues in the Borden case: (1) The evidence against Lizzie was overwhelming, and (2) she was easily acquitted. I'm reminded of the first time I ever read an account of the case from start to finish. My first thought upon finishing was "What the...?"

I would not say the evidence against Lizzie is overwhelming at all. I would say her behavior is highly suspicious, and that means and opportunity make her the most likely suspect...but the actual evidence is weak.

She had the motive: she stood to inherit a fortune.

She had the means: she was there.

And her statements were inconsistent.

But evidence? No murder weapon, no bloody clothes, no blood on her hair or skin, no witnesses. That's weak evidence however you slice it.

What about John?

We don't know of a motive. That doesn't mean there was not one...just that none has ever been substantiated.

Did he have the means? Not to kill Andrew. But how can he be ruled out for Mrs. Borden? It occurred around the time he would have been leaving the house. It occurred in the room he was staying. The only way, it seems to me, that we can rule him out for that murder is if we prove that both Bordens were killed by the same person. Can that be proved?

It would be a strange thing to consider that John could kill Abby and then someone else would kill Andrew with the same weapon. But one doesn't have the luxury of eliminating the strange in an unsolved case.

Had there been a scandalous relationship between John and Lizzie, and had the Bordens discovered it, that would have provided motive for both John and Lizzie. Yes, that kind of speculation might seem to be a leap, but this case has not only gone unsolved, but certain "facts" have just never added up.

At the Borden house tour the other day, we were told that John not only memorized the badge number of the trolley driver, but he conversed with 6 priests and remembered the first and last name of each. That's very odd. When you combine that with the fact that John was on foot for the outbound part of his journey and yet returned by trolley, you can't help questioning what he was doing.

Several coincidences are in play. John arrives the night before the murders. John leaves the house after dinner to run errands around town. At the same time, Lizzy visits Alice Russel. Both return around 8. In the morning, John leaves around the same time as Abby's death, and returns perhaps 45 minutes after Andrew's death. And when John returns, he hangs out in the yard eating pears. There may be some dispute about just how many people were at the house, but there would certainly have been dozens, all of them in an exited state, with curious people running to the house in droves. His behavior makes no sense at all, and William of Occam himself would not be able to dismiss it.

Finally, a word on "ifs". It's all in how the word is used. An if that creates wild speculation is not of much help. For example, "if" Lizzie was dating Dr. Bowen's stable boy...that's wild speculation.

However, "if...then" statements are the indispensable tool of logic.

Some examples:

- if Mrs. Borden knew the killer, then...
- if the guest room door was found closed, then...
- if Lizzie lied about the note, then...
- if Lizzie told Alice the night before she was worried they were in danger, then...
- if John was going out of his way to establish an alibi, then...
- if John was not truthful about what he saw when he arrived at the yard, then...

For example, every investigation starts with the premise that Mrs. Borden knew the killer. Everything follows from that, and this is what starts the arrows pointing at Lizzie. No doubt that's what started it back in 1892.

And I thought the same thing when taking the tour of the house and seeing the picture of Abby. One imagines the killer standing behind her and probably conversing with her. There were no defensive wounds.

But since then I'm not so sure. The picture of Abby's body can be discounted. That was not how they found her. The body was placed there for the photo, and they had their own Victorian sensibilities about how it should be placed. This was not CSI. It's not at all outlandish that someone could swipe an ax jumping across the bed and manage to avoid the hands of a stunned Mrs. Borden. Not at all. The stairs lead from the main door pretty much straight to the guest room. If the door was unlocked, or someone had a key, it's certainly plausible. I'm not saying it happened that way, I'm just not so confident now in my original "if then" where I begin with Abby knew the killer.

One last word on the difficulty of motive. As far as we can tell, Bridget had no motive. But that's a pretty limited statement. If Bridget was upset about the way she was treated by the Bordens, how would we ever know that? And yet it would be substantial motive. Many Irish nannies were treated in a demeaning way. For example, they were not allowed in the bedrooms, even the guest room. That's why Abby was making that bed. And Bridget was a very big girl, very manly. A stranger in a strange land. It's not at all impossible that she felt mistreated.

I don't say this to point a finger at her, but merely to point out the problem with establishing motive. We have no reason to suspect Dr. Bowen had a motive, so that would be pointless speculation. But anyone living in that house could possibly have motive, certainly a servant. To point out that killing her employers would be illogical really says nothing at all about how she felt about them...and this seemed to be a crime of passion.

So while I would lean strongly toward Lizzie being the killer, there are things that don't add up.

- It would appear Andrew was killed between 10:55 and 11:00, and that Lizzie shouted for help no later than 11:10. So at most she had 15 minutes to clean up and get rid of the weapon. That's tough to account for.
- I feel very confident that if Lizzie was the killer, or Bridget for that matter, they would have closed the door to the guest room after killing Abby. The first thing you want to do after a crime is cover it up. It's that simple. There's a corpse, a bloody mess...you cover your tracks, close the door. It was not expected that anyone would go up there...but still, you close the door. Especially if you are waiting for father to come home. I mean, just taking a few steps up those stairs and you can see the body.

Did Lizzie go back and open it later so it would look like an intruder had been in there? Come on. She had 10 minutes to clean up and get rid of a weapon, and concoct a story...which she did not do very well. I doubt she has the thought of running up to open the door. If she wanted to make it look like an intruder, surely she could have done something better, like leave the front door unlocked.

- and there is the hatchet. Where is it? If Lizzie did the crime, someone had to help her smuggle out the hatchet. There were several people that could have done that...Bowen, Bridget, Alice...but why? The lack of a weapon here is a HUGE hole that HAS to be accounted for. Lizzie never left the property. William of Occam is not offering much help with that problem either.

leitskev wrote: ...
I feel very confident that if Lizzie was the killer, or Bridget for that matter, they would have closed the door to the guest room after killing Abby. The first thing you want to do after a crime is cover it up. It's that simple. There's a corpse, a bloody mess...you cover your tracks, close the door. It was not expected that anyone would go up there...but still, you close the door. Especially if you are waiting for father to come home. I mean, just taking a few steps up those stairs and you can see the body.

Did Lizzie go back and open it later so it would look like an intruder had been in there? Come on. She had 10 minutes to clean up and get rid of a weapon, and concoct a story...which she did not do very well. I doubt she has the thought of running up to open the door. If she wanted to make it look like an intruder, surely she could have done something better, like leave the front door unlocked.

...

leitskev, I agree with you for many points you stated in your thread. What I quoted here is one of them. I believed that Lizzie was guilty. But the gust room door's being closed (first) and open (then) was the very detail who began to change my mind. You said: "I feel very confident that if Lizzie was the killer, or Bridget for that matter, they would have closed the door to the guest room after killing Abby. The first thing you want to do after a crime is cover it up. It's that simple. There's a corpse, a bloody mess...you cover your tracks, close the door. It was not expected that anyone would go up there...but still, you close the door. Especially if you are waiting for father to come home." I agree for every word you wrote. I have said a couple of times my idea about this: the killer was an intruder, after killing Abby, he hid himself just in the guest room, that's why Lizzie found the door closed; when he left the room to go to kill Andrew, he didn't care to close it (a very natural thing), that's why Bridget and Mrs. Churchill found the door open afterwards.

There is no question in my mind she would have closed the door after the murder of Abby. No question at all. It's part of the natural instinct to cover the crime.

However, she could have gone back up there right before the killing of Andrew. And Bridget's testimony suggests she did, as she laughed from up there when Bridget let Andrew in the front.

She might have left the hatchet in with Abby and gone back to retrieve it. And that makes a lot of sense. Why walk around the house with a bloody hatchet when Bridget was doing chores?

And if Lizzy went back, she might have left the door open this time. I have to admit, it seems more likely that she would just shut it again, but it's hard to say.

We should also keep in mind that Lizzie seems to have been someone in need of attention. This might explain her kleptomania. It might explain her later parties with the actors. She may have WANTED people to see her work...not for any rational reason, but just because it was the need for attention manifesting itself.

Still, in the end, the open door is more consistent with an intruder who waited in the room with Abby's corpse then went back to work when Andrew got home.

Thanks!