Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I have noticed over the years the opinion being expressed that Lizzie was maybe a little less than average in intellect. This fascinates me because if she did murder her parents, she got away with a murder we are still today debating. I think that Lizzie was pretty cunning in her own way. Not only did she get away with it, there really is not one shred of conclusive evidence we can point to that says she did it. If these murders had happened today everything would have been handled differently. Lizzie would not have been afforded the lee way she was given simply for being female and a member of the church. But we cannot be sure about what happened to the murder weapon, how she kept herself from getting blood splattered, how she concealed the weapon to get close enough to Abby, how nobody heard anything, if she poisoned them beforehand and with what, etc and etc. I think Lizzie was far more cunning than she is given credit for in some instances. What do you all think about this?

I'm thinking narcissist.

It would still be a hard case to tackle, from a prosecutorial standpoint, even with modern forensics, because Lizzie lived on the premises, and its occupants' DNA evidence would have been on top of one another's.

Add to that, the unsealed crime scene....

However, Lizzie never claimed to have touched the bloody corpses of either Abby or Andrew. If any blood evidence were found and tested by modern standards, say that drop on her petticoat or the bloody water in the pail, that tied blood from the victims to Lizzie's person-- well, that would have been strong evidence against her. If the water in the pail in the cellar tested postive for Abby's blood, it would have been fairly conclusive, against Lizzie.

Of course, a hotshot defense attorney would say that the perp did that. Well, what am I talking about? Such evidence would not exist in a modern setting.

Or, at least, I hope not.:)

*******************************

Lizzie had ample motive, plenty of means, and opportunity.

I still think that, if Alice Russell had come forward (especially at the last minute), during the Inquest, that Lizzie would have cracked. I honestly don't think we'd be discussing this case on this forum. I think Knowlton would have broken her.

So, Allen, short of breaking down Lizzie-- yes, a most difficult case, particularly by the ways and means of the era.

Interesting but what if we look at this from the other direction. What if all those amazing difficult things that Lizzie seems to have pulled off were not done by her at all. What if she didn't really kill her parents? It is a possibility. For her to have pulled off such an amazing crime and cover her tracks well enough for there to be reasonable doubt does seem to be unbelievable. Perhaps she was involved, had secret knowledge of a plot, may have even aided and abetted, but not done the deed. That would explain her lawyer's insistence on being prepared for different charges if the case were reopened.

If Lizzie truly did not do it, the only person who COULD have done it was Bridget! So, if Lizzie was outside as she claimed, it would have had to have been Bridget who did it. But Lizzie was quick to exonerate her, OR anyone else who worked for Andrew! If Lizzie was innocent, she would have HAD to suspect Bridget, because she was the only other person in the house! But she didn't! That means either Lizzie did it, or she knew darned well who DID!!! And if she DID know who did it, she would have had to have aided and abetted them to pull off the murders! It's also possible Bridget knew something, but was promised to be totally cleared of any involvement if she kept quiet, or promised financial compensation for her silence. Lizzie could have easily fingered Bridget as the killer, and Bridget probably would have been convicted. The Irish were not very popular during that era to begin with; an Irish servant who murdered her employers and who was accused by the churchgoing daughter of the couple would most likely have been convicted! Bridget really had no choice but to keep quiet about anything she knew! I'm sure Lizzie also knew this and used it to her advantage!

I think Lizzie was smarter than everybody gives her credit for. Some how or another, she managed to get away with murder. And hired the equal of Oj's dream team. And I think that back then, in the 1800's, I think the general thinking was that proper, well brought young ladies don't do hideous deeds like this.

Lizzie was clever all right, but could she have pulled off the perfect murder without a generous helping of luck? For instance, on the day of the murders, there were five persons in the Borden home - Lizzie, Abby, Andrew, Bridget and John Morse. The actions taken that morning by these individuals offered Lizzie two small windows of opportunity to carry out the two killings. First, Morse leaves the house to conduct some business across town, and Andrew leaves for his usual walk downtown. Abby then tells Bridget to wash the windows, causing Bridget to go outside and leaving Lizzie and Abby alone in the house. Abby goes to the upstairs corner room, giving Lizzie a perfect opportunity to murder her sight unseen. Lizzie has time to clean up before Andrew returns home. Bridget decides to take a nap in her attic bedroom, and Andrew obligingly places himself in a volunerable recumbant position on the parlor sofa with his head next to, and facing away from, the dining room door. As Lizzie took full advantage of this golden opportunity to hack her father to death, again sight unseen, she must have thought she had providence on her side! And who could argue with this? The "ifs" in this case are many: If Morse had decided to hang around the house and visit his friends later in the afternoon; if Abby hadn't ordered Bridget outside to wash the windows; if Abby had gone to the guest room earlier or later in the day; if Bridget had decided not to take a nap when she did; if Andrew had decided to not to lay down on the sofa; if Morse had returned home a half-hour earlier. Yes, Lizzie was an intelligent, clever and brazen killer - but when you consider the narrow time frame she had, not only to carry out the killings but also to dispose of any evidence connecting her with the crimes, you must conclude that without a large helping of luck, she never could have gotten away with it.

Lizzie didn't need to be particularly clever, as her inquest testimony shows. She was female and she lived in Massachusetts in 1892. That was enough at the time to prevent her being found guilty on the evidence presented. The case was a political hot potato, nobody wanted to contribute to a woman being found guilty of first degree murder and executed as the result. Since the death penalty was mandatory at the time for first degree murder, and since there was no way to get any other charge out of a double homicide with a hatchet as the weapon, it was either sentence Lizzie to death or let her off completely. The impossibility of sentencing women to death was the reason for subsequent classifications of second degree murder and manslaughter. Dewey's charge to the jury gave them "permission" to bend the law and its definitions to a great extent and was likely delivered in the event the jury thought they needed an excuse in weighing the evidence in favor of acquittal.

Yooper:

I don't think you're giving Lizzie enough credit in the brains department, and considering the lack of solid evidence, even a male would probably have been acquited. As I suggested earlier, the reason for the lack of hard evidence is as much due to luck as to Lizzie's careful planning. Lizzie was able to place herself in the right place at the right moments that fate - or chance - provided. However, had any of the "ifs" I mentioned occurred, Lizzie might have been observed during or immediately after the act. An eyewitness would have made all the difference in the case, and Lizzie would likely have been convicted, female or not.

There was a history in Massachusetts of women caught in the act of murder and a conviction was not forthcoming. In at least one instance, the woman was re-tried on a lesser charge and convicted, but there was no mandatory death penalty for the lesser charge. I suggest reading Robert Sullivan's "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" to gain some insight into the political climate and the legal aspects of the Borden case. Lizzie only needed to be aware of that to find the encouragement necessary, it had nothing to do with intelligence. If Lizzie could kill unseen she could very likely get away with it, and a lack of hard evidence would virtually assure it.
Lizzie needed Abby by herself to accomplish the primary task, and if Abby was upstairs out of usual traffic patterns, all the better. Once that was done the die was cast, she had to hope that Andrew would make himself vulnerable, and knowing he wasn't feeling well, her chances were better for his wanting to lie down before lunch. If he was in the habit of napping on the sofa rather than on his bed, she just might get lucky. She did! The several coincidences involved in order for the murders to occur in the way they did was more a matter of luck than intelligence. There may have been some rudimentary planning involved, but the complexities could not all be foreseen.

Yooper: Your observations are sound, but your conclusions are open to debate. Lizzie had obviously decided to kill her parents and get away with it. She had good reason to believe she could fool everyone (she'd been doing that successfully for many years) and likely believed that no one would think a woman could possibly be so brutal a killer. But I doubt she relied on political climate or historic criminal case law in her planning, as you suggest. She was an accomplished sociopath, convinced of her superior capabilities to get away with anything including murder; she needed no legal precedent for encouragement. Her escape from justice was based solely on lack of direct evidence against her, not on her sex or the mandatory death penalty. Had there been an eyewitness to directly connect Lizzie with the murders, or had the bloody hatchet been discovered hidden in her wardrobe, or had brains and blood splatter been found on her clothing, or had any other conclusive evidence against her been offered, it would have been impossible for the jury not to find Lizzie guilty of the double murder. Certainly her sex would have been considered, but I think the mental picture of Lizzie attacking both parents from behind - one after the other - and savagely driving that bloody hatchet repeatedly into their heads, would have obviated any feelings of sympathy or consideration for her as a woman. The question as to whether the mandatory death sentence would have been carried out is another matter. The Governor might have commuted her sentence to life imprisonment, as had been done previously in the case of a female murder defendant, I believe. Your reference to Sullivan is appropriate as he was the first to delve into the history of how the law dealt with female murder defendants in Massachusetts. Personally, I consider Sullivan's book the best treatment of the Borden case in print, not only for his totally objective approach to the subject, but also for his unique legal perspective and the valuable historical insight he provides. A copy should be on everyone's book shelf.

What I find interesting is the guest room is the only door that was not kept locked at all times on the second floor. This to me indicates someone who knew the lay out of the house, the family habits, and which doors would be locked. Is it coincidence that Abby was killed in the one room on the second floor that was not only kept locked, but also a place Bridget had no duties to attend to? It is stated in trial testimony that Bridget had no reason to go to the second floor. The cleaning of the bedrooms were taken care of by the girls and their parents.

Good point, Allen. Lizzie knew Abby would be going into that room to make up the bed. She couldn't know exactly when, but it didn't matter - as long as it was before Andrew or John Morse returned home. And as you point out, she wouldn't have had to worry about Bridget going up there. Still, it was a lucky break for Lizzie that Bridget was outside washing windows when the attack occurred. Had Bridget remained indoors, she may have heard sounds coming from the second floor during the attack - a shocked cry from Abby, her body hitting the floor, or even the repeated blows to Abby's skull. Testimony like that would have greatly strengthened the case against Lizzie.

John Watson wrote:Lizzie was clever all right, but could she have pulled off the perfect murder without a generous helping of luck? For instance, on the day of the murders, there were five persons in the Borden home - Lizzie, Abby, Andrew, Bridget and John Morse. The actions taken that morning by these individuals offered Lizzie two small windows of opportunity to carry out the two killings. First, Morse leaves the house to conduct some business across town, and Andrew leaves for his usual walk downtown. Abby then tells Bridget to wash the windows, causing Bridget to go outside and leaving Lizzie and Abby alone in the house. Abby goes to the upstairs corner room, giving Lizzie a perfect opportunity to murder her sight unseen. Lizzie has time to clean up before Andrew returns home. Bridget decides to take a nap in her attic bedroom, and Andrew obligingly places himself in a volunerable recumbant position on the parlor sofa with his head next to, and facing away from, the dining room door. As Lizzie took full advantage of this golden opportunity to hack her father to death, again sight unseen, she must have thought she had providence on her side! And who could argue with this? The "ifs" in this case are many: If Morse had decided to hang around the house and visit his friends later in the afternoon; if Abby hadn't ordered Bridget outside to wash the windows; if Abby had gone to the guest room earlier or later in the day; if Bridget had decided not to take a nap when she did; if Andrew had decided to not to lay down on the sofa; if Morse had returned home a half-hour earlier. Yes, Lizzie was an intelligent, clever and brazen killer - but when you consider the narrow time frame she had, not only to carry out the killings but also to dispose of any evidence connecting her with the crimes, you must conclude that without a large helping of luck, she never could have gotten away with it.

I think that shows how smart she was. She took advantage of the sitiuation with everyone out of the house. And she couldn't say Bridget did it because she was outside washing the windows, And, yes, a whole lot of luck.

There was no hard evidence against Lizzie or anyone else for the crime, it was all circumstantial. Lizzie didn't need to be aware of anything more than a near impossibility to convict women of murder in Massachusetts, simply common knowledge. There was no need for an awareness beyond that to gain encouragement in attempting the murders. Lizzie fell all over herself with her inquest testimony, hardly a testament to her cleverness. Judge Blaisdell summed up his decision with words to the effect that if it was a man before him, there would be no hesitation in a finding of probably guilty! This was based in large part on Lizzie's inquest testimony, which was disallowed at the trial along with Eli Bence's testimony about the poison. I think Lizzie simply decided to kill her parents and let the chips fall where they may. She got very lucky. There was certainly some basic planning involved, likely taking logistic advantage of Abby in the guest room with everyone else out of the house, but probably not much beyond that. She certainly did her best to get away with it, why would she confess? I think this decision was made prior to killing her father, and that act was the result of a resolve to survive. She likely gained encouragement in this through a perceived ability to get away with things in the past, along with the prevailing societal aversion to the death penalty for women. You don't have to be particularly bright in order to be sneaky.

This was a woman who never before had shown any proclivilty for violence or acting out in any manner. A woman who had been sheltered and lived in a bubble due to her circumstances and the Victorian times. During the entire grueling ordeal she maintained her innocence. After her acquittal she lived such a quiet and uneventful life that the book "Parrallel Lives" was considered a giant success by simply finding a couple of new photos of her. All who came into contact with her after the trial seem to have had nothing but kindness and generosity offered to them. At her death she requested burial at her fathers feet. An unconvicted double murderess? No. Not alt all in my opinion.

Just becaus she didn't show any a proctivity towards violence or acting out, doesn't mean she couldn't have done it. Sometimes people let things build up inside them and just "snap" for a lack of a better way to put it.That's not to say she did it but you can't rule it out either. Can't get around the fact that she was the only one in the house at the time of her step mothers murder.And Bridget was in her room when daddy war bucks was getting hacked to death. Besides, anything is possible, even with the most well brought girl.

Yes you are right Snookums, anything is possible. Therefore it is just as likely that Abby's half sister snuck into the house while Lizzie was peeing in the barn and took out her sister and brother in law because she feared being prosecuted for the Daytime Robbery the year before. On the original question though I don't think there is anything solid to suggest that Lizzie and/or Emma were anything but average and typical females of the era. All kinds of comments have been made in the 110+ years since the event and they are almost uniformly rubbish. Lizzie's education was typical for the times and her social activity suggests an average normal person.

But even the worst things can happen to the best of people. Emma and Lizzie were average well brought up people, but they could have just ssnapped.

Allen wrote:I have noticed over the years the opinion being expressed that Lizzie was maybe a little less than average in intellect. This fascinates me because if she did murder her parents, she got away with a murder we are still today debating. I think that Lizzie was pretty cunning in her own way. Not only did she get away with it, there really is not one shred of conclusive evidence we can point to that says she did it. If these murders had happened today everything would have been handled differently. Lizzie would not have been afforded the lee way she was given simply for being female and a member of the church. But we cannot be sure about what happened to the murder weapon, how she kept herself from getting blood splattered, how she concealed the weapon to get close enough to Abby, how nobody heard anything, if she poisoned them beforehand and with what, etc and etc. I think Lizzie was far more cunning than she is given credit for in some instances. What do you all think about this?

Yes, Allen, if Lizzie did do it, she was really cunning in her actions: killing two persons with (most probably) the very first blow, using a hatchet (if the weapon was really a hatchet) that most probably she had never used before, keeping herself from getting blood splattered, and if she got blood splattered, her cleaning up herself so perfectly, and hiding the weapon that was never found afterwards... Her brilliance was just astonishing.

Astonishing yes, but all this was possible. Nothing was impossible for the Borden case, I think.

But this issue is always paradoxal for me. If Lizzie was so brilliant in her actions, I have a great difficulty to understand why Lizzie prepared a so bad version of her alibi testimony (it seems to me that she didn't prepare any alibi at all), why she invented a so stupid note story? I am not at all misogynist, but for a woman with the life experience like Lizzie's, I would be much less surprised if Lizzie were more brilliant in words than in actions.

Steveads2004 wrote:Interesting but what if we look at this from the other direction. What if all those amazing difficult things that Lizzie seems to have pulled off were not done by her at all. What if she didn't really kill her parents? It is a possibility. For her to have pulled off such an amazing crime and cover her tracks well enough for there to be reasonable doubt does seem to be unbelievable. Perhaps she was involved, had secret knowledge of a plot, may have even aided and abetted, but not done the deed. That would explain her lawyer's insistence on being prepared for different charges if the case were reopened.

That Lizzie didn't kill her father and her stepmother is much more than a possibility for me.

SallyG wrote:If Lizzie truly did not do it, the only person who COULD have done it was Bridget! So, if Lizzie was outside as she claimed, it would have had to have been Bridget who did it. But Lizzie was quick to exonerate her, OR anyone else who worked for Andrew! If Lizzie was innocent, she would have HAD to suspect Bridget, because she was the only other person in the house! But she didn't! That means either Lizzie did it, or she knew darned well who DID!!! And if she DID know who did it, she would have had to have aided and abetted them to pull off the murders! It's also possible Bridget knew something, but was promised to be totally cleared of any involvement if she kept quiet, or promised financial compensation for her silence. Lizzie could have easily fingered Bridget as the killer, and Bridget probably would have been convicted. The Irish were not very popular during that era to begin with; an Irish servant who murdered her employers and who was accused by the churchgoing daughter of the couple would most likely have been convicted! Bridget really had no choice but to keep quiet about anything she knew! I'm sure Lizzie also knew this and used it to her advantage!

Lizzie hollered to Bridget: "Maggie, come quick! Someone came in and killed father."

Lizzie, instinctively, judged that an (unknown) intruder killed Andrew. Since after more than 120 years we are never able to exclude the intruder's possibility, why the killer must have been Bridget (if Lizzie was innocent)? why Lizzie, if innocent, must know something about the killer?

Allen wrote:What I find interesting is the guest room is the only door that was not kept locked at all times on the second floor. This to me indicates someone who knew the lay out of the house, the family habits, and which doors would be locked. Is it coincidence that Abby was killed in the one room on the second floor that was not only kept locked, but also a place Bridget had no duties to attend to? It is stated in trial testimony that Bridget had no reason to go to the second floor. The cleaning of the bedrooms were taken care of by the girls and their parents.

Lizzie was not the unique person to know all this, Morse knew them (almost) as well as Lizzie (and Bridget).

John Watson wrote:Yooper:

I don't think you're giving Lizzie enough credit in the brains department, and considering the lack of solid evidence, even a male would probably have been acquited. As I suggested earlier, the reason for the lack of hard evidence is as much due to luck as to Lizzie's careful planning. Lizzie was able to place herself in the right place at the right moments that fate - or chance - provided. However, had any of the "ifs" I mentioned occurred, Lizzie might have been observed during or immediately after the act. An eyewitness would have made all the difference in the case, and Lizzie would likely have been convicted, female or not.

"the reason for the lack of hard evidence is as much due to luck as to Lizzie's careful planning..."

Could her contradictory alibi testimony be the result of a "careful planning"? Could that stupid note story - if it was a lie - be the result of a "careful planning"? Lizzie could not be sure when Morse would return but she acted as well (if she did do it), could this be called a "careful planning"?