1. "Parricide"
Posted by haulover on Oct-25th-03 at 10:10 PM

I was looking for anything i could find on the subject of parricide.  i ran across this research document.  much of it is a bit askew from lizzie -- for example, it was saying that most people who kill their parents are male and it went into some detail about the sexual undertones of a boy killing his mother, etc.  if you want to take a look at the whole article this is the link:  http://www.rf-institute.com/journal-pomocrim/vol-7-remap/004shon.html

one paragraph in particular jumped out at me because we talk about it in one way or another so often.  This:

"Another brief commentary is necessary in regards to Corder et al's (1976) findings. Thus far we have stated that the crime scene is signified by the presence of "overkill," and use of edged instruments. If the subject's goal was to kill, a firearm would have been a more effective and certain method of parricide. And the fact that the parricide subjects scored low on impulse measure indicates that the crime was not impulsively committed. We seem to be at an impasse: the measurement instrument purported to measure levels of impulse control asserts that subjects of parricide do not suffer from a lack of poor impulse control; in other words, they don't just "go berserkers." On the other hand, the use of edged instruments as the prevalent method of parricide conveys an impetuous, impulsive, and passionate element, something beyond mere reason and rationality--consciousness. It is at this impasse that psychiatric and medical models can not offer anything more informative. We turn to psychoanalytic--unconscious--theory of parricide to arrive at a new level of understanding."

This sentence makes not much sense to me:
"...that subjects of parricide do not suffer from a lack of poor impulse control;"...

By "subjects of parracide" I assume they mean the perpetrator?  It sounds like the victim.
And this:
"do not suffer from a lack of poor impulse control;"
do not suffer from a lack, means they do not lack.
They do not lack poor impulse control.
They do not lack means they have.
They have poor impulse control...which is what the sentence ultimately means, yet they are saying the opposite.

Another thing is Lizzie probably had no access to a gun.  So her situation cannot compare.  Recently someone said to me that hatchets were very common back then and ever useful in the yard and preparing for winter.
There might be quite a difference in comparison mainly because of the difference in centuries.

Otherwise, we seem to be at a different impasse than this author believes.

My opinion is that if someone brings a knife or a sword or a hatchet or some bladed weapon to the scene in order to kill, than that would show impulse control, which might nowadays translate into "an organized offender".
If a person grabs a weapon on the premises in order to kill, than that is poor impulse control as it seems more spontaneous.  That might now be called a "disorganized offender."

"subjects of parricide do not suffer from a lack of poor impulse control; in other words, they don't just "go berserkers."

referring to the above:
the subject is the killer.  yes, the wording is stilted.  i thought the phrase after the semicolon explained it.

let me put it in my words as i understood it:

the killer is not an out-of-control type person -- even though killer prefers bladed instrument (as opposed to quick death) and tends to overkill.  i'm talking about the paradox -- method of murder that which you would associate with spontaneous rage does NOT match circumstances (which is not "sudden" but built and brooded over time).

that's what i thought this article identified and ended with a big question mark.

we are always posing that question mark, and i thought it was interesting that someone had found that in parricide crimes.

why do we struggle between "went off her rocker mad as hell" and "calmly coldly planned it?"

like this:

wielding an axe on a hot hateful day............but not because of something that pissed off the killer on that day......but because of cold fury built up over time when killer is a master of self-control.

"looks like" irrational rage but is actually cold calculation.

no, she did not have a gun, but poison was an option she might have tried and given up on.

also note this:  OVERKILL.

interesting finding, don't you think, that parricide crimes typically are characterized by "overkill."

well, to put it in a nutshell -- my point is that someone who "studied" parricide -- arrives at conclusions that fit lizzie if she's guilty.  i was surprised at how little i find on the subject searching the internet.



 

Good post. There are some very good points made in that article, one of which reads: "...And the fact that the parricide subjects scored low on impulse measure indicates that the crime was not impulsively committed....

Assuming it was Lizzie that did the deeds the instrument of death plays an important part.  She would have had to have access to the murder weapon.

If she kept it in her bedroom then it is 100% certain the crime was premeditated.  Not much need for a hatchet or cleaver in your bedroom.

If she kept it or found it in the cellar that means a trip had to be made down there to get it when she was ready to strike.  That takes a few minutes, time to cool down from a sudden rage. She admits she was down cellar earlier but offhand I don't know the time in relation to Abby's killing.  Then Bridget had to be out of the way and she had to be cognizant of that fact. 

The same more or less applies to the instrument being on the first floor somewhere.  The parlor would seem to be the logical place but it still requires going and getting it and having Bridget out of the way.

I don't think it was an impulse or rage killing.  She may have stoked her own fires a bit to work up her courage but it was a thoughtful rage, not one of uncontrolled actions.

The conclusion follows from the assumption that LAB did it.
But if not (as the Trial concluded) then it was someone else who did bring it with him. Isn't this a more objective and rational conclusion? LAB said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father". This right after the murder was discovered, before she could talk to Uncle John and create her cover story.

Isn't parricide one of the rarest crimes around, then or now?

In real life "Ray & Patty?" would move across country, not across the street. Agree? (Note that is sort of follows the classice "I Love Lucy" scenes?)

Actually I thought you did and Harry did a better job of defining the article than the article did.  That was my problem.
The fact that there is no solid conclusion in any theory, means we can interpret the impasse any way we want.
I think if the violent offenders who killed outside the family had only kept it inside the family, that would be their true victim.  Then parracide and matricide would be more prevelant.
Killing a stranger, say, is in sublimation to killing a parent.
The killing of a parent being so taboo as to mythic proportions, it becomes easier to kill a stranger.
Also, I still think the gun cannot be a factor in intrepreting a motive as to impulse because of the era (1890's) and comparing poison to a gun is not feasible.
If this were the wild west, we might find more correlating points.
I don't subscribe to such a thing as *cold rage*, that's just my opinion/feeling.

Other than the above opinion, I do think Harry's description says it well.

The expression "Cold Rage" hit a nerve. Just recently, my boss, who
has been in a successful business and happily married for 28 years,
went bezerk on Labor Day, he threw all the patio furniture off the
upstairs deck, then went into the street at a busy intersection with
his knife, threatening motorists stopped at the light.  The newspaper
accounts said when he was apprehended he told them "he wanted to kill
somebody".  He has absolutely NO recollection of this episode.  Nobody
was hurt and the incident is never talked about at work.  The newspaper reported that he said "family problems were bothering him".
  His wife, who is a good friend and a big talker, usually tells me
everything, has clammed up and does not speak of this incident.
He has diabeties and I wondered if that had anything to do with it,
maybe he didn't take his medication that day?  Of all the true story
books I have read, and the many true crime shows on TV, it just never
hit home before that someone I knew to be sane and intelligent could
just go nuts in an instant, and then not even remember it?
  This put a new light on the Lizzie case for me!  

That's awful that that happened.
How can he not remember, do you know?

It still seems to me that the term "cold rage" is an oxymoron.
I think of methodical intent in the instance you describe.
I think cold rage is more a poetic term.

I also hate to bring this up, but sharp instruments and methodical intent plus some seasoning of drugs mixed together = OJSimpson.  Drugs being the catalyst.
(I'm not comparing your story , nj, with oj)

But where there is a true medical condition like diabetes or hypoglycemia or even dehydration that really is a shortage of the natural drug in the body and that imbalance can cause violence and delusion.
It's still due to drugs or imbalance or loss of natural drugs.
But it's not *cold*, it's intense.

the newspaper account (which is all I know) said that my boss
was NOT under the influence of alcohol.  But those of us who knew
him, wondered about that, he was a drinker and his wife is not
saying a word.  She said that she checked his medication (in boxes
labeled for each day) and he did not take his medication that day.
Who knows?  It just reminds me of the LIzzie case because noone will
TALK about it.  Strange but understandable in small towns. 

what is it about "cold rage" you disbelieve as a reality in the spectrum of human emotions?  i've also heard the term, "cold fury."  same thing.  it refers to unexpressed anger which is kept concealed but at some point in time is expressed.  i've always assumed i understood it.  it's anger that is fueled over time within a person who is not given to "fly off the handle" but feels and broods and deeply resents a repeated injustice.  a person who has more self-control than most can take a lot, but there is a breaking point.  i think of the "pressure cooker" metaphor.  some people express anger easily and get over it easily.  some don't deal with it well, and in them it is stored up and rationalized for as long as possible as something that will go away or somehow, in the end, hopefully, not amount to anything at all.  yet it's real and it's there.  if guilty, this is my view of what was going on within lizzie.  to my way of thinking, how she could do this in this way -- is precisely related to the fact that she is not an aggressive person but a passive one.  but a passive one who broods and resents and hates.  there is something about this that is more insidious and deadly than a short-tempered person.

but unless i misunderstand what you're saying, i don't see how you could doubt the reality of "cold rage."  it happens everyday.  when someone suddenly turns into a monster and guns down his co-workers -- that is not because of something that angered him that day.  this type killer could write a book about his resentments which he has kept hidden for years.

The thing you describe which you are calling cold rage, I do believe in , of course.  The phrase is what I don't agree with, and I don't think it's important what we call it.
It is understood what is meant by it, but my idea of word meanings is acute and sometimes I may go on and on, so somebody stop me.

What do you think of my theory of sublimation of killers?
That they are trying to kill their parents, but don't dare?
Some do kill the parent or grandparent and it's still not enough.

There you go again!!!
How long does it take you to understand that OJ didn't do it?
The limo driver picked him up at 11pm, so he could not have committed the murders ("forensic evidence says they were killed after 11pm" said the ME).
The limo driver arrived at 10:22, and waited until the 10:45 pickup time. During that time he saw nobody either arriving or leaving OJ's residence.
Ron G left work at 9:58, and walked half-mile to his home (10:12?). He then changed his clothes, then walked to where the borrowed car was parked. IF he also showered, that would put the time after 10:25. Since many restaurants forbid their help from eating there, the food in his stomach say he went somewhere to eat. That makes 11PM the earliest possible time for him to arrive there. Plus parking a block or two away put the time after 11pm.

You can look it up.

i see. semantics.  i wasn't sure where your disagreement was.  that article , by the way, some kind of research paper -- i did not carefully read all of it and did not care about all of it.  what caught me were two things:  overkill and blunt or bladed weapons.

cold fury is an oxymoron, of course.  perhaps "hate" would suffice for it. i suppose the phrase comes from the idea of fury so longlasting that it is there even after the heat has cooled?

i'm not sure about your sublimation theory.  are you saying someone might kill a stranger BECAUSE they can't bear to kill a relative?  i'm not sure what you mean.

i would think that if it's true statistically that parricide is usually a killing that is "extreme" or "outrageous" in some way -- it is because of deep-seated complex or "unbearable" emotions that explode.

I can envision a hate that is cold and longlasting, but once it *explodes* that is heat, that is hot, that is not cold-blooded.
The act is the give-away...the acting out.
Do we hear in the arguments at the trial about the horrible black thing that would kill a father? (Do you know?)
I also think that there is the type of person who enjoys killing - but see even that is not *cold* because they are really getting their jollies but are ashamed to admit it.

Anyway, think of Edmund Kemper, admittedly a serial killer, but he killed his grandparents and was let out after some time (he had been young), then killed a bunch of co-eds then killed his mother and her best friend and then pretty soon turned himself in.

It was as if he had finished, his demons were allayed once his mother was dead.

The grandparent or the parent,  whoever did much of the raising of the killer (or both),  could be the ultimate object of serial murder, or maybe any murder.
They messed up somehow, at least in the killer's mind.

...
This was the case from early 1970s in Calif? Freeing mental patients becamse policy in many states around that time, which caused downtown areas to be blighted by them hanging around.

(Message last edited Oct-28th-03  12:24 PM.)

"Edmund was incarcerated in juvenile hall while the California Youth Authority decided what to do with him. A court-appointed psychiatrist diagnosed Edmund as paranoid and psychotic, and the Youth Authority committed him to Atascadero State Hospital. He entered the facility on December 6, 1964 when he was not yet 16 years old."
....
"Sociopaths (and Edmund had been diagnosed at Atascadero as that) were usually reluctant and uncooperative workers, but Edmund seemed eager to do his best."
.......
"He was clean-cut and conservative, intelligent and sheltered, and when he was released in 1969, the changes that had occurred in the outside world must have come as quite a shock. His renewed contact with the outside world began at a community college near Atascadero. While he attended school, he was still under the supervision of the Youth Authority."
.......
"Meanwhile, he did very well in his studies, and after three months, he was paroled for another 18 months. His doctors at Atascadero had recommended strongly that he not be returned to his mother, who had relocated to Santa Cruz, California. Against their advice, the Youth Authority sent him straight to her.".....
.......
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kemper/edmund_1.html

--This was in the 60's and I think a function of the Juvenile system.

 

Smart convicts know how to work the system. Now or then.

(I recently read a book about the James-Younger Gang; they invented Bank Robbery.)

Pat Brown Sr was governor from 1958 to 1966. Then Ron Reagan. Then Pat Brown Jr. Talk about dynasties?
Ron Reagan's son or daughter were obviously not up to it.

FROM ROBINSON'S CLOSING:

The terrors of those scenes no language can portray. The horrors of that moment we can all fail to describe. And so we are challenged at once, at the outset, to find somebody that is equal to that enormity, whose heart is blackened with depravity, whose whole life is a tissue of crime, whose past is a prophecy of that present. A maniac or a fiend, we say. Not a man in his senses and with his heart right, but one of those abnormal productions that Deity creates or suffers, a lunatic or a devil. So do we measure up the degree of character, or want of it, that could possibly prompt a human being to such acts.

______________________________


FROM KNOWLTON'S CLOSING:

There may be that in this case which saves us from the idea that Lizzie Andrew Borden planned to kill her father. I hope she did not. I should be slow to believe she did. I should be slow to ask you to believe she did. But Lizzie Andrew Borden, the daughter of Andrew Jackson Borden never came down those stairs.  It was not Lizzie Andrew Borden, the daughter of Andrew J. Borden, that came down those stairs, but a murderess, transformed from all the thirty-three years of an honest life, transformed from the daughter, transformed from the ties of affection, to the most consummate criminal we have read of in all our history or works of fiction.

      Nay, Mr. Foreman, that was not all.  She came down to meet that stern old man. His picture shows that, if nothing more, even in death. That just old man, of the stern Puritan stock, that most of you are from, gentlemen. That man who loved his daughter, but who also loved his wife, as the Bible commanded him to. And, above all, the one man in all this universe who would know who killed his wife. She had not thought of that. She had gone on. There is cunning in crime, but there is blindness in crime too. She had gone on with stealth and cunning, but she had forgotten the hereafter. They always do. And when the deed was done she was coming down stairs to face Nemesis. There wouldn't be any question of what he would know of the reason that woman lay in death. He knew who disliked her. He knew who couldn't tolerate her presence under that roof. He knew the discussions which had led up to the pitch of frenzy which resulted in her death, and she did not dare to let him live, father though he was and bound to her by every tie of affection. It is the melancholy, the inevitable attribute of crime, that it is the necessary and fruitful parent of crime.

      Ah, Mr. Foreman, how many a man, if he could only be told before he began to commit a crime---could be told and assured that there is no such thing in divine justice as stopping with one crime, would hesitate before he crossed the threshold of virtue. He must go on; he cannot go back. Crime breeds crime, and is the mother of crime. And so when that woman came down stairs, it was her father---it was her father; but it was also the husband of her stepmother whom she had slain, and it came to her---God grant it never came before!---let me have that confidence in human nature to believe it never came before, let me have that confidence in human nature to believe it never came before---it came to her that she had become a criminal and there was no escape from the consequences of that crime but to complete the bloody work.

      Let me not be misunderstood, Mr. Foreman. I do not say that that took place. It is not necessary for me to say that that took place. It is no part of this controversy to say that that took place. The Commonwealth is charged with a duty of satisfying you that she killed her mother and father; not why. But it is a grateful relief to our conceptions of human nature to be able to find reasons to believe that the murder of Andrew Borden was not planned by his youngest daughter, but was done as a wicked and dreadful necessity, which if she could have foreseen she never would have followed that mother up those stairs as she left Bridget after giving her instructions about washing the windows---followed her into that room, slain her as she stood perhaps at that very marble that was found spattered with her blood, dusting it in the line of her ordinary avocations. But people never stop to think of the hereafter in crime. And so I leave that there, not as a matter of proof---oh, no, oh, no,---but to relieve my mind of the dreadful necessity of believing that there is a deliberate parricide yet living in America.

______________________________________________


knowlton's last statement is a bit optimistic, to say the least.  but i do find his whole argument more compelling.  or  maybe it's just that her guilt makes the more powerful story.

robinson is falling back on the believe that many people would prefer to have (and therefore believe) that to find the killer you'll have to find a black-hearted fiend that couldn't possibly even remotely resemble lizzie borden.  (that really is unrealistic in the reality of plenty of crimes we know all about.)

i read both closing arguments today, and i post the above to refresh our memories.  and maybe to assist in what i think is the unlying issue of this thread -- something i seem to be more and less confused or constantly wavering about.

isn't the problem this?  that the crimes themselves indicate "rage" (let me go with what you've just said, rage must necessarily be HOT as opposed to cold, and rage is in the method of the killings.)  BUT there is an hour and a half or so between the murders, when in fact (indisputably so) the killer patiently waited as necessary (cooly, if you will, cold) for the opportunity for the second murder.  so is that the rub? 

now here's an analogy that may seem odd, but it makes a striking point about our confusing choices of words and definitions.  i'll put my point in the form of a question:  which is more difficult to understand?  finiteness or infinity?  think about it. how do we typically handle the problem?  when we reach an impass about comprehending the one, we resort to the other -- but we never solve the puzzle.  consider the universe as finite as you'll find that this outer wall of finiteness is impossible because there must be something on the other side; this naturally leads us to consider infinity, but that seems impossible as well because there must be a limit.  if there's a word for this it would be an oxymoron, i suppose, but i don't know how to deny its reality.

and so with these murders:  you've got two rage killings separated in time by cold calculation.  any attempt to "resolve" this disparity seems to get nowhere -- we just bounce around, back and forth.  we talk about planned vs. spontaneous -- which are other words for the same things. 

is it more accurate to say that lizzie simply did what was necessary in order for her to accomplish a selfish goal?  to get rid of an obstacle to what she wanted and to get away with it?  if the selfishness (or your narcissistic theory) is correct -- perhaps lizzie did not especially hate abby or love andrew.  maybe she was not especially hot or cold.  perhaps it was a lack of feeling altogether for the value of someone else's life.  that lizzie used the most effective weapon available for "chopping off" those "parts of her world" that vexed and limited her? 

what dovetails here are lizzie odd answers or inability to answer questions about her relationship with her stepmother -- her change from "mother" to -- not abby -- but "mrs. borden." and how perplexed she was to be asked about her parents' relationship -- as though she had never even considered it.

Excellent post. 

I wish I could remember who to credit this quote to, because it's so true --

"The opposite of love is not hate.  The opposite of love is indifference."

But Lizzie is no more guilty then than now.
What was the result of that recreation of the Trial?
...
Robinson seems to be describing a "madman"; what did he know and when did he know it?


(Message last edited Oct-29th-03  3:49 PM.)

I put off reading your post until bedtime so I could let it sink in.
Thanks for including parts of the trial arguments.
That was a really well-written composition!

Dr. Phil said to the young teenaged daughter of the dysfuntial family he treats on Thursdays (remember Martin?) when she blasted off at her mother and ended by shouting "ERIN!" that calling your mother by her first name or by any name but mother is designed to hurt and humiliate and disown.
( Tho This was her bio mother, too.)

I wonder what he would say about our Lizzie?
She's at the least a case of arrested development.
I suppose that is why she was so old when the house brouhaha hit the fan, and why she stopped calling Abby Mother and did start to assert herself by claiming property owed her from her father.
I wonder what was the catalyst?
Living relatively quietly until 1887, 27 years old?
The parricides and matricides usually happen by 20.

Wow, Haulover, in my opinion you are right on the money!!  That's exactly how I see it--that Lizzie somehow lacked the capacity to empathize with Abby and Andrew--that, to her, she was somehow "cutting off" what impeded her from achieving the "success" she believed she deserved.  Not that she was incapable of emotion, but that she did what she felt she had to do.  BTW, along these lines, what do you all think of that long post on another thread where the composer of the post studied hundreds of axe murders and believes Lizzie could not have killed her stepmother and father?  I am not convinced that every perpetrator must fit into a profile--there are plenty of exceptions.  With all due respects to that poster, I just can't bring myself to agree with him, just as I cannot buy AR Brown's theory.

Thanks for insightful post Haulover and for refreshing the closing
statements. Besides the actual words, I have a feeling that Robinson
had a more powerful presence and bond with the jury than Knowlton,  and the jury just went with him. 
The discussions about rage have me bothered
lately, after my boss just flipped out.  It makes me wonder about
Lizzie's emotional makeup.  All we really know is her words at the
inquest testimony, that is Lizzie. And that is pretty flat.  Everything else is heresay really, "she loved animals.."   Her
account in her own words over the transfer of property was pretty
bland and matter of fact.  I think you make some excellent points
Haulover, good food for thought, thanks.  

that post you refer to i thought was inconclusive.  it just did not "click" with me.

something else on lizzie's inquest:

when she's trying to describe her relationship with her stepmother, she uses this term, "not the dearest of friends but...."  isn't that alone an odd term to apply to a stepmother -- not one you've known from teenagehood either but practically from infancy?

i ran across something about the susan smith case.  (this, of course, specifically, is infanticide, but is in the same family of crime.)  at one point before her confession, her husband noted that she became upset that people were focusing so much on the missing children that they were not giving her the attention and understanding she needed, she seemed upset about this.  i couldn't help but think of lizzie up in her bedroom telling the officers that all this was making her sick and was it really necessary they search her room, etc.  of course, this susan smith confessed, but i was struck by the same sort of self-centeredness.

what do you think about this?  that lizzie was so naive and/or childish that she really thought she could orchestrate the discovery and that she herself could not possibly be accused?  even in her inquest, she is not able or willing to say one thing about "personal relationships." as if the subject is a blank to her or it is out of the question to speak of such things.  myself i would not think to answer this way, but this:  "in what ways was it not like mother and daugher?"  "i did not choose to call her mother."

 

i'm convinced that her love of animals (even if true in every sense of the word) has nothing whatever to do with her ability to commit these crimes.

i don't want to offend so many pet-owners ( myself included) -- but i can even see how that in itself is a clue that she could butcher human beings.

***Dr. Phil said to the young teenaged daughter of the dysfuntial family he treats on Thursdays (remember Martin?) when she blasted off at her mother and ended by shouting "ERIN!" that calling your mother by her first name or by any name but mother is designed to hurt and humiliate and disown.
( Tho This was her bio mother, too.) ***

dr. phil should read what knowlton had to say about it:

That correction of Mr. Fleet at the very moment the poor woman who had reared that girl lay dead within ten feet of her voice was not merely accidental. It went down deep into the springs of human nature. Lizzie Borden had never known her mother. She was not three years old when the woman passed away, and her youthful lips had scarcely learned to pronounce the tender word Mamma, and no picture of her lay in the girls mind. It was not so perhaps, with Emma, but Lizzie Borden had no remembrance of her mother such as your child or mine would have, if ever three years of age and their mothers were suddenly taken away. And yet she had a mother,---she had a mother. Before she was old enough to go to school, before she had arrived at the age of five years this woman, the choice of her father, the companion of her father who had lost and mourned and loved again, had come in and had done her duty by that girl and had reared her, had stood in all the attitudes which characterize the tenderest of all human relations. Through all her childhood's sicknesses that woman had cared for her. When she came in weary from her sports, feeble and tired it was on her breast that that girl had sunk as have our children on the breast of their mothers.  She had been her mother, faithful and persevering, and had brought her up to be at least an honorable and worthy woman in appearance and manner.  This girl owed everything to her. It was not a case where after a period of childhood from ten, twelve, or fifteen years, the loved one is taken away and another one comes in to take its place who tries as we know often how faithfully they try, but cannot do it, to fill the place of the one that has gone. Mrs. Borden was the only mother she had ever known, and she had given to this girl her mother's love and had given her this love when a child when it was not her own and she had not gone through the pains of child birth, because it was her husband's daughter. And then a quarrel,--what a quarrel! What a quarrel, Mr. Foreman! A man worth more than a quarter of a million of dollars, wants to give his wife, his faithful wife who has served him thirty years for her board and clothes, who has done his work, who has kept his house, who has reared his children,---wants to buy and get with her the interest in a little homestead where her sister lives. How wicked to have found fault with it. How petty to have found fault with it. Nay, if it was a man sitting in that dock instead of a woman, I would characterize it in more opprobrious terms than those. I trust that in none of the discussion that I engage in today shall I forget the courtesy due from a man to a woman; and although it is my horrible and painful duty to point to the fact of this woman being a murderess, I trust I shall not forget that she is a woman, and I hope I never have.

            And she repudiated the title that that woman should have had from her. Did you ever hear of such a case as that? I have once. I once knew of some young man who had acquired that contempt for a dissolute and drunken father that they denied him the title of his paternity. I know how utterly vile and worthless his life was. I shared in their contempt for them. But it struck me as the most unnatural thing I ever knew a young man to do.

            My distinguished friend says this defendant had grown to be a woman, that is true, but that mother of hers had grown to be an aged woman, and she was as much a mother to her then as she ever was. The assassin's blade cuts deep. That wicked hatchet when deep down into the brain of that old woman, but Mr. Foreman it never went so deep into Abby Durfee Borden as did the contemptuous refusal of this girl to call her by the name of mother. It was a living insult to that woman, a living expression of contempt, and that woman repeated it day in and day out, saying to her, as Emma had said, you are not interested in us. You have worked round our father and have got a little miserable pittance of $1500 out of him, and you shall be my mother no more. Am I exaggerating this thing? She kept her own counsel. Bridget did not know anything about it. She was in the kitchen. This woman never betrayed her feelings except when some one else tried to make her call her mother and then her temper broke forth.  Living or dead, no person should use that word mother to that poor woman unchallenged by Lizzie Borden. She had left it off herself; all through her childhood days, all through the times when growing to womanhood, all through her young life Mrs. Borden had been a mother to her as is the mother of every other child to its offspring, and the time comes when they still live in the same house and this child will no longer call her by that name.

I agree with you, Haulover, about Lizzie's confidence that she could orchestrate the events (and also, I note with interest your remarks about her "self-interest."  Even if one does not think Lizzie did it, one cannot escape Lizzie's coolness (coyness?), including this strong sense that she somehow "orchestrated" events.  Also, I agree with you about that other post.  Though I respect his research and opinion, it just didn't convince me that "Lizzie didn't do it."  That's why I was delighted to see a thread entitled "Parricide," rather than "axe murderer."  Seeing this crime as parricide will produce much more fruitful insights into Lizzie's character, I believe.

Doesn't this depend on the tone of voice and the circumstances?
Or vice-versa?

What prevents you from agreeing with AR Brown's logical solution to the crime? It, unlike the others, provides a reasonable answer as to why Lizzie shielded the real killer, and the other questions.

We did find out that Susan Smith had been a victim of incest. Can this apply at all to Lizzie? Would Emma make a better suspect?

Knowlton's dramatic and boring speech, too wordy and theatrical
for the humble men on Lizzie's jury, probably lost him the case, imo.

Yes I think Knowlton's argument was not too good.  It was as if he couldn't make up his mind.  He daren't call Lizzie other than a lady and yet he wanted to call her black as evil.  He was wishywashy and yes, that diffused his remarks.
Ray, this girl screamed "Erin" at her mother and turned her back.
Obvioulsy, Lizzie didn't do that in public, but the act of changing her habit of calling Abby mother, and now naming her Mrs. Borden did disown her and humiliate her to outsiders...I want to say 'especially then', when absolute obedience was called for in the offspring, but even so now, per Dr. Phil.

IS calling Abby "Mrs Borden" really an insult if only spoken at home? In the sense that it was in privacy. So how did Lizzie treat Abby outside the home? Did the facts of them going to Churce together (somebody's quotes) overrule any of these names?
This could be another search for something that isn't there.

Lizzie did talk about Abby behind her back and to other people outside the house.  That is disrespectful, you must agree.  Lizzie made her disagreements with Abby clear to everyone.
A major point in the prosecution was that Lizzie left off calling Abby "Mother", surely you know that.
......
Witness Statements
13-14
"We then went to Mrs. Geo. Whitehead, on Fourth street. She said 'this property was owned in part by me and my mother. My mother wished to dispose of her interest. I could not purchase it, and did not want to sell; so in order that I might keep my place, Mrs. Borden, my step sister, bought the other interest. This the girls did not like; and they showed their feeling on the street by not recognizing me. Lizzie did not like Mrs. Borden.' "
.......
Inquest
Hiram Harrington
134+
Q.  Do you know what the relations were between the daughters and the mother?
A.  I did not go into the house; all I can tell is hear say, that is from them. The step mother never mentioned it in my presence.
Q.  Did Lizzie?
A.  Lizzie has, yes.
Q.  What has Lizzie said about it?
A.  I dont know as I could put anything together now to tell you, any more than to tell you there was some difficulty some way. She thought she equivocated. I dont know as I could put enough of it together now, I can just give you an idea. I cant remember words that were passed at the time, any more than just this much, that she thought she equivocated.
Q.  About what, did she say?
A.  In regard to something about Bertie, that is, Mrs. Whitehead, a half sister of Mrs. Borden. I think it was something about helping her, or that her father had bought the property. The general construction I have got of what she said, and from what little I learned, was that he had bought the property and gave it to his wife; and of course that meant giving it to her half sister.
Q.  Did Lizzie speak about it to you more than once?
A.  Sometimes it has been mentioned in a joking way, about the difficulties. I dont know as I could put enough together to say really what was passed.
Q.  How long ago was the last time she said anything about it?
A.  I think last Winter sometime. I have not seen her at the house for, I might say all Summer, and I have inquired of my wife how it was that Lizzie had not been down. Emma has always come. And the reply I would get from her was that Lizzie was into everything, that is, the works in the church, and her time was occupied; that is what I would get from her.
Q.  When she spoke about it last Winter, what did she say about it?
A.  I dont know as I could tell any more than to speak kind of sneeringly of Mrs. Borden. She always called her Mrs. Borden or Mrs. B. I dont know as I could remember anything to put together to make any sense.
Q.  Did she speak in an unfriendly way of her?
A.  Unfriendly, yes.
Q.  You never heard Mrs. Borden say anything about it at all?
A.  Never mention it. I have heard my wife say that Abby never mentioned it.
Q.  But it was understood there was trouble in the family?
A.  O, yes there has been I guess. For several years, I guess, of his early marriage with her, everything was very, very pleasant, uncommonly so for a step mother.
Q.  This trouble is of recent years?
A.  Quite a number of years, I should think. They were rather reticent about telling these affairs, although sometimes it would crop out.

..........
Inquest
Alice
150+
Q.  I do not like to ask this question, but I feel obliged to. Did you see enough to notice what the relations were between Miss Lizzie and her mother?
A.  In all my acquaintance, which is ten years sure, and most of that time has been, part of the time quite intimate, I never yet heard any wrangling in the family. I have got to answer the question, and I will say I dont think they were congenial.
Q.  What gave you the impression they were not congenial?
A.  Because their tastes differed in every way; one liked one thing, and the other liked another.
Q.  Were they together very much?
A.  I dont think they were very much.
Q.  I suppose what you say about Lizzie is also true of Emma?
A.  About the same; it was not always the same, but it would be hard work to tell.
Q.  I judge by your saying they had a sitting room up stairs---
A.  They sat up there a great deal.
Q.  Their step mother did not sit up there with them?
A.  I dont think so.
Q.  Did you ever hear Lizzie speak of any trouble she had had with her mother?
A.  Yes, I suppose I have. I have heard her say that Mrs. Borden thought so and so; the same as any family.
Q.  Did she express to you ever that she regarded her mother as untruthful or deceitful?
A.  I dont think she ever did.
Q.  Did she ever allude particularly to any trouble she ever had with her mother?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Did she ever tell you what the trouble was?
A.  Nothing further than she was a step mother. The whole thing was as far as I could see, that an own mother might have had more influence over the father; it was the father more than the mother.
Q.  What do you mean?
A.  The father was the head of the house; they had to do as he thought. Mrs. Borden did not control the house; the whole summing up of it, was that.
Q.  Were her relations with her father cordial?
A.  So far as I know. I never saw anything different.
Q.  Were they congenial?
A.  I should not suppose they would be - knowing their different natures.
Q.  The different nature of the father and mother and Lizzie?
A.  Yes, each of them.


.....
Inquest
Hannah Gifford
158+
A.  It was some remark I made about her mother's garment, what would be becoming for her. You know Mrs. Borden was very fleshy; I spoke to her of what I thought would be becoming to Mrs. Borden. She says "well she is a mean old thing". I says "O, you dont say that Lizzie?" She says "yes, and we dont have anything to do with her, only what we are obliged to", she says.
Q.  She said that?
A.  She said that, yes.
Q.  Anything more?
A.  Well, she says "we stay up stairs most of the time; we stay in our room most of the time." I says "you do, dont you go to your meals?" "Yes, we go to our meals, but we dont always eat with the family, with them; sometimes we wait until they are through", she says.
Q.  Did she tell you why?
A.  No. That is all she said. I did not say anything more. I was awfully surprised to hear her.
Q.  You never heard Mrs. Borden say anything, I suppose?
A.  No, I never heard any of them say anything against each other.
Q.  Excepting that?
A.  That is the only time I ever heard Lizzie either, and I was very much surprised.
Q.  Did she seem to be joking about it, or speaking with some feeling?
A.  No, she seemed to have a little feeling about it; that was all. There was no joking about it at all.
Q.  That was this last Spring?
A.  Yes, it was early in the Spring that I done their work.
.......
Inquest
Mrs. Tripp
143+
Q.  What can you tell us about the relations between Lizzie and her mother, so far as you observed it, and heard it from Lizzie?
A.  All I can tell you is that I dont think that they were agreeable to each other.
Q.  What made you think so?
A.  I have seen them together very little. What should make me think so, would be--- if I were there, why, they did not sit down, perhaps, and talk with each other as a mother and daughter might. They were very quiet.
Q.  That is, they were together so little that you observed the fact?
A.  No, I dont think I should, they were around in the same room together, the dining room.
Q.  They associated together so little you noticed the fact they did not associate together?
A.  I noticed it; not that they kept away from each other, not that at all, but that they did not enter into conversation, perhaps, with each other, perhaps.
Q.  Was that so with Lizzie as well as Emma, or with one daughter more than the other?
A.  I think Lizzie talked with her mother more than Emma.
Q.  Emma had less to say to her?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  What else did you notice that led you to think that Lizzie and the mother did not get along well together, or were not agreeable to each other, as you expressed it?
A.  I dont know of anything, I cant recollect anything.
Q.  What you noticed was their manner towards each other?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  That is all, not from any words?
A.  Their manner to each other was not that of those persons that are agreeable to each other, or it did not seem to be.
Q.  When was it that you have seen them together?
A.  I could not tell you surely; it is as much as five years since I have seen Mrs. Borden at all.
Q.  So all this was based on what was quite a while ago?
A.  O, yes sir.
Q.  The officer reports that you told him that Lizzie told  you at some time, that she thought her step mother was deceitful, one thing to  her face and another behind her back.
A.  Did he say I said Lizzie told me so?
Q.  Yes.
A.  I did not think I told him so. It seemed to me so; it seemed to me that she did not like one way appearing to her face, you know deceitful, she could not bear deceitfulness, and she could not bear one thing to her face, and find out another thing to her back; she could not bear deceitfulness.
Q.  Was that what Lizzie told you?
A.  I could not say she told me that, that was the idea I got from what--- well, I dont know as I could say from being there, or from being with Lizzie perhaps, for I have been there very little.
Q.  You also told the officer that Lizzie told you that her step mother claimed not to have any influence with the father, but Lizzie thought she did have an influence with him.
A.  Yes, I think Lizzie thought she did.
Q.  Did Lizzie tell you that her step mother claimed not to have any influence with him?
A.  I dont remember any such talk.
Q.  With relation to giving some property to the step mother?
A.  Lizzie, from what I have heard her say, but I could not tell you the words, Lizzie said, but I gathered from what I heard her say, it was a long time before I heard her say it, that she thought her mother must have had an influence over her father, or he would not have made a present to her half sister. It was a long time ago, not expecting this to come up, I could not swear to one word Lizzie said.
Q.  This was all prior to the last visit, nothing was said about this at the last visit?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Did Lizzie say to you she did not know that either Emma or she would get anything in the event of her father’s death?
A.  I did not hear her say so.
Q.  Who told you she said so?
A.  I think my invalid sister told me so.
Q.  What is her name?
A.  Miss Carrie M. Poole, she is very feeble, she lives on Madison street New Bedford, she is very feeble indeed.
Q.  You never heard Lizzie say that?
A.  No Sir, I never heard Lizzie say that.
Q.  The officer says you said explicitly, Mrs. Tripp, that Lizzie told you that she thought her step mother was deceitful, one thing to her face, and another thing behind her back, not in so many words, but that was the substance of what she said.
A.  I dont remember of her saying that.
Q.  Do you remember of telling that to the officer?
A.  I remember very well talking to him that I thought Lizzie thought her mother was deceitful, one thing to her face, and another to her back. I could not say Lizzie told me that, I cant say so. I was taken very much by surprise at seeing Officer Medley come in, and I tried to tell; but those things were years back, and thinking they never would come up, I cant recollect word for word things that occurred years ago. I cant say that Lizzie told me she thought so; but it would be from little things I might have heard her say that would cause me to think she could not bear deceitfulness, being such an honorable person as she was, square person.
Q.  Did she appear to be fond of her step mother in her talk with you?
A.  No, I dont think she was fond of her.
Q.  Did she appear to be unfriendly towards her?
A.  No Sir.


(Message last edited Oct-31st-03  6:20 PM.)

But if Abby went to church w/ Lizzie, how much hatred and anger could be here? Nobody asked why Emma didn't go w/ Abby or Lizzie, or what Andy did.

it is a singularly suspicious phenomenon that after more than 25 years, lizzie decides to say "mrs. borden."  think about this, ray, just using common sense.  at an age about which she can barely if at all remember, abby is mother.  then suddenly after so many years -- MRS. BORDEN?  not even Abby -- but Mrs. Borden.  consider human nature and natural feelings in general.  it is certainly something worth an explanation -- which knowlton, of course, did not get. do you call aunts and uncles mr or mrs so-and-so? 

many people (like myself) have parents who divorce when we are teenagers or young adults (rather like emma, i guess).  if they remarry, we call them by their first names (there is in this case nothing parental about them -- they are people).  in this case, it would be "silly" to say mr or mrs.  they are more like family-related "peers" -- they have no authority.

i just don't understand how anyone could go from a "mother" to a "mrs"?  point being:  this is a HUGE leap in definitions.  but lizzie did this in fact.  i know one thing about this for sure, being a human being who has had/does have a mother, it is this -- it means that lizzie did not understand the meaning of the word, "mother."  lizzie says "the relations were not changed," that she "did not call her mother."

so how do you explain it?  you've been observing human nature long enough. 

You have said you are depending upon another's say that Abby and Lizzie went to church together and basing all your questions on that.
Could you give the cite where you got that from?  I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying I don't know and would like to know more please?

"Could you give the cite where you got that from?  I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying I don't know and would like to know more please?" NO.

You know it has to be from the book of either AR Brown, F Spiering, or R Sullivan. Or mayber D Kent? Which of these do you trust the most, if any?

(Message last edited Nov-2nd-03  10:03 PM.)

i wish i'd seen that one!

I KNOW that AR Brown's solution is best, and enjoy matching wits and knowledge about the case. But nobody can prove this in court, EVER!

I just want to see what anybody else has to say.

Kat keeps me on my toes, even if I do not have the Trial Transcript and other documentation readily available. (I'm not a collector.)

funny Haulover

I will have to re-read Arnold's book, as I have been re-reading
all my Lizzie books lately.  I remember being a bit turned off to
him years ago when he wrote long and arrogant letters in the
early LBQs. 

I never said so much by saying so little!

Yes those letters turned me off him- he sounded belligerant and confrontational and he also sounded dismissive of any one else and their opinion. He was a bully.

Parricide not only could apply to Lizzie but also to Bill Borden too.  Didn't someone state that typically it is MEN that commit this crime?  He was also in the habit of always carrying his hatchet with him because he was often paid for falling an animal when he was in town because he could do it in one swipe and with little blood -- he was known for being so good at it.  It would not have been unusual for him to be carrying it with him and he was the bastard son of Andrew - hence the case for parricide right there.  Another point is that women very rarely kill and when they do it's because of a romantic love interest gone bad somehow.  When they do decide to do it they choose a method that is more "detached" thus making it easier to get the guts to do it.  An example is poisen or a gun.  It's alot easier to pull a trigger or dump powder into a drink then it is to swing a hatchet.  To actually have the emotional strength to take a sharp object like a hatchet and strike into the skin producing alot of blood is incredibly "personal" and not detached at all.  There aren't too many crimes in history when someone uses something so violent and personal such as a hatchett.  It takes an incredible brand of psychosis to pull it off I think.  Perhaps Lizzie was planning on poisening Abby by attempting to purchase some for her seal cape but Bill beat her to it. 

Does this Bill really exist as the person you all think?
Aren't there questions as to his birth certificate and death certificate?
If this is William Borden, found to be in Taunton Asylum, that was like 20 years before this crime.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/NewResearch/BrownControversy.htm
(See Jon Keller letter)
Actually, we have a member, who has been in the first Lizzie Borden message board, that studies and collects axe and hatchet murder news items.  He has posted here recently that he has 300 murders saved up in his archives due to hatchet & axe.
Apparently, those implements were common in households and therefore became rather common weapons.
I could think of several famous crimes which were committed with a maul, a pickax, hammer and a ice pick.
(Well, the ice pick was local, so maybe that's not *famous*.)

The pickax murder was done by a girl in Texas and she was put to death in the last few years.  She was high, she said.

I was just reading about this old case about Bridget Durgan who was a maid for a doctor and his family.  On February 25, 1867 she stabbed and beat and set on fire the doctor's wife whilst he was out on a childbirth call.

I found this on a website about her, as with Lizzie, its not entirely correct.

"They left out the insanity business in this woman's case and tried her on the plain guilty-or-innocent merits of the charge against her. Of course they brought her in guilty of murder in the first degree and without any recommendation to mercy. After the verdict was rendered, she went out of the Court-room smiling, and seemingly in excellent spirits. The woman is either a fiend or a fool. Her case is utterly incomprehensible. The circumstantial evidence shows that she cut and hacked and stabbed her victim in many places, and bit her on the neck, and then wore out some of the furniture beating her with it. And yet, not the shadow of a motive can they discover that she had for harming her mistress at all! Unless Bridget Durgan goes and spoils everything by confessing, before they hang her, this dark and bloody murder will be the most relishable mystery of the age. It is said, however, that she has intimated that in due time she will confess, not that she did the deed, but that she saw it done, and will furnish to the world all the dread particulars of the assassination. The story would be read here with a ravenous interest. Another woman is to be tried shortly, as her accomplice."

Bridget Durgan was hanged for the crime alone, no accomplice and was rip-roaring drunk when they did it.  She did not leave the courtroom smiling, she left it screaming and crying after they read the verdict.  And, she apparently suffered from a form epilepsy, brown-outs, much like Victoria Lincoln had our Lizzie suffering from.  But, with Bridget it was documented and the fits only came around while she had her menstrual period and she was having it the night she killed Mrs. Coriell. 

That sounds like an interesting case Susan.

The Durgan case is one included in a proposed 5 volume set of crimes that is expected to be published in 2004.  The Lizzie Borden case is also included. 

Unfortunately the deadline of October 1, 2003 has passed for submissions of chapters else someone on this forum could have written on the Borden case.

For some reason I can't post the URL on the web site (way too long)but you can go to this Google page and click "Dear Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture Readers" (third from the bottom) View as HTML.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Bridget+Durgan%22&btnG=Google+Search

(Message last edited Nov-5th-03  10:34 PM.)

Yes, I saw that tonight, missed it by a hair.  In the book I have Women Who Kill they equate Bridget Durgan with Lizzie because the physical description of Bridget sounds like Lizzie.  Where with Bridget they equate her physical attributes for making her a cold blooded killer, with Lizzie they make her a lady.  It really is interesting. 

Perhaps you don't have enought experience in corporate life? As a "Director" (2nd or 3rd level mgmt) AR Brown could be dismissive of any questioning by lower ranked folk. Also, as the first published book that solved the case (IMO), he could also be dismissive of people who didn't know as much. Pride is still with us.

Read the Acknowledgments in ARB's book, he just didn't make it up like a novelist. Also, he was not a professional writer (like Sullivan or Masterton).

My opinion, and it is only an opinion as I never knew the people, is that IF it was Lizzie who tried to buy cyanide (a very quick acting poison almost never used in real life, except for L-pills), it was for protection against Wild Billy Borden.

I can imagine a genteel Lizzie trying to calm Willy down and offer him some food or drink. Self-defense?

YES!!! Reading that letter from AR Brown shows the attitude of a high-level manager against anyone who DARES to question his policy or opinion. Woe unto some low-level worker who does this. ESPECIALLY if later event prove the high-level manager wrong!

Because the high-level manager may be following "policy", the wishes of higher level management. The low-level worker is naively basing his opinon on the facts as he sees them.

What is YOUR opinon on all this?