Motive -- is there any question?

[camgarsky4]

Reading thru Lizzie Borden Sourcebook and I've read several contemporary newspaper articles which unequivocally state that Lizzie didn't have a motive. That just bewilders me since she inherited the equivalent of $millions.

As an example, here is an excerpt from the New York Herald August 6th.
"The fact that she tried to buy hydrocianic acid at D. R. Smith's drug store on Wednesday and has since been identified by Eli Bence, has done much to direct suspicion toward her. But the motive is not there, or at least it is not yet apparent. While it might have been possible for Lizzie to have hacked the heads of her father and mother to pieces, no good reason why she should have done so has been advanced."

Any ideas on why an enormous inheritance wasn't automatically considered a powerful motive at that time?

I can't imagine the 'motive naysayers' think she was satisfied with her roughly $2,500 in savings (primarily from the sale of Ferry St. back to Andrew).
$2,500 pales in comparison to >100x that amount. On top of that, Andrews father died in 1882 at the age of 84 years and it would be logical that Lizzie would project Andrews life expectancy to be similar to her grandfather.....meaning 15 more years before any windfall.

Motive seems abundantly clear and points directly at Lizzie and Emma. But are there alternative ways to look at this?

[PossumPie]

Homicide generally is a three-legged stool: Motive, Means, Opportunity. Lizzie it can be agreed by (virtually all) had the means (hatchets in the house) and opportunity (she was a member of the household who saw both victims just prior to the murders.) As for motive, the article you cited was written soon after the horrific crime and perhaps it wasn't yet known how much the girls would stand to inherit. Most patricides/matricides are crimes of passion not financial gain although there have been a few well known cases of killing parents for money such as Lyle and Erik Menendez. I can understand how in the early days of the Borden murders, money wasn't considered. They were "well off" but not famous-rich.

Moving away from Lizzie for a moment, if we ask "who else would have a motive?" we are left scratching our heads. I believe that if Lizzie was NOT the killer, than the only other logical person would be a stranger that Andrew screwed over. He was famous for being a shrewd businessman, and even his family verbalized that he probably had enemies. A stranger would have motive: revenge, means: a hatchet, and opportunity...That is the least believable as the span of time between the killings makes opportunity of a stranger killing very unlikely unless we start implementing a "deus ex machina" (God from the machine). Deus ex machina means we invent all sorts of improbable items to make an idea more likely. They use it a lot in soap operas, the main actor quits and they bring another actor in to replace him. They say he was in a horrible accident and needed a face transplant.
A stranger hid in a bush, his accomplice rang the bell, the first man snuck in behind Abbey, snuck upstairs, surprised and killed her, hid in the room for an hour, snuck down to Andrew...You see how all these inventions add up to improbability. So...all of that to say that Lizzie had the strongest motive, means, and opportunity.

[Reasonwhy]

Very nicely stated, Possum!

[camgarsky4]

Possum was channeling himself some Franz!!

[Reasonwhy]

Camgarsky, perhaps this failure to see dollars as motivation is sexism. Inconceivable to think of any woman, let alone a daughter, willing to murder for it? That would rather be taking into her own feminine hands the means to wield her own financial clout, wouldn’t it? Too threatening to take such power out of the hands of men.

[PossumPie]

Possum was channeling himself some Franz!!

Nothing against Franz, he had a great imagination! It was just that he made up a theory, than tried to bend facts to fit the theory. It science (forensics included) one looks at the facts and attempts to theorize the cause in the simplest, most logical way. Conspiracy theorists develop a conspiracy then manipulate facts to fit the conspiracy. I try very hard to put aside my biases in the case, I've concluded in my mind Lizzie is probably guilty, so human nature is to ignore or explain away anything that doesn't support my theory. But this is dangerous. You lose sight of other possibilities.

[camgarsky4]

Reason - you are likely onto something. Reading the contemporary articles, the sexism issue is pervasive. How could a woman do such a heinous thing? Especially a wealthy, educated and church going lady!

Even the trial judge and jury participated in this periodic bias.

[camgarsky4]

Reason - you are likely onto something. Reading the contemporary articles, the sexism issue is pervasive. How could a woman do such a heinous thing? Especially a wealthy, educated and church going lady!

Even the trial judge and jury participated in this Victorian bias.

Narcissism and greed are not exclusive male traits.

[PossumPie]

Reason - you are likely onto something. Reading the contemporary articles, the sexism issue is pervasive. How could a woman do such a heinous thing? Especially a wealthy, educated and church going lady!

Even the trial judge and jury participated in this periodic bias.

I agree. Lizzie went free for 2 reasons: Not enough solid evidence, and incredulity that a woman could hack people up to get money. If she had poisoned them, she might have been convicted.

[Reasonwhy]

Found this:

“The Lizzie Borden Murder Trial:
Womanhood as Asset and Liability,”
by A. Cheree Carlson, 2010

https://www.westfield.ma.edu/historical ... borden.pdf

[Reasonwhy]

Here is some of the concluding material from the article cited by me, above:

“….The defense chose to use gender in the most conventional way. Feminine gender was applied directly to the image of Borden as agent. She lived up to the nineteenth-century standard of femininity well enough that she emerged as a delicate, affectionate daughter. In this drama, she was clearly innocent.

In contrast, the prosecution took up the same tools but applied them first to scene, then to act, so that Borden as agent would emerge slowly. She violated the nineteenth-century standard of femininity well enough that she emerged as a cold-hearted, greedy female. In this drama, she was clearly guilty. Neither side had a radically different view of womanhood. Each was certain that the all-male jury would share their premises. . . . Although the prosecution lost, the district attorney put together as good an alternative narrative as contemporary sensibilities would allow.

Interestingly, as time has passed, the tables have turned somewhat. At the time of the verdict, “few newspapers did anything except rejoice at the outcome.”35 So ingrained was the conventional narrative that no one criticized its use, not even the female reporter assigned by the New York Times.36 Due to cultural changes and the recognition that women are as prone to primitive impulses as men, the notion that a woman is constitutionally incapable of violent crime has been shattered….”

[Reasonwhy]

I agree. Lizzie went free for 2 reasons: Not enough solid evidence, and incredulity that a woman could hack people up to get money. If she had poisoned them, she might have been convicted.

—partial post

Possum, the author of the article agrees with you that had the prosecution been able to get the prussic acid testimony in, it’s quite likely she would have been convicted. I agree, also, looking at the results of the proceedings in which that evidence was presented: after the Inquest, she was arrested; at the Preliminary Hearing, she was pronounced probably guilty; the Grand Jury bound her over for trial.

I agree with other lawyers whose opinion it is that the poison testimony was improperly excluded. Moody cited sufficient case precedent to establish its relevance.

[PossumPie]

I agree. Lizzie went free for 2 reasons: Not enough solid evidence, and incredulity that a woman could hack people up to get money. If she had poisoned them, she might have been convicted.

—partial post

Possum, the author of the article agrees with you that had the prosecution been able to get the prussic acid testimony in, it’s quite likely she would have been convicted. I agree, also, looking at the results of the proceedings in which that evidence was presented: after the Inquest, she was arrested; at the Preliminary Hearing, she was pronounced probably guilty; the Grand Jury bound her over for trial.

I agree with other lawyers whose opinion it is that the poison testimony was improperly excluded. Moody cited sufficient case precedent to establish its relevance.

Agreed. The more subtle point I was attempting to make is that if all things being identical except poison was used instead of hatchets, the jury (and general public) would have found it easier to convict. There was a long history of women killing men by poison which was seen as cleaner more refined befitting a woman.

[Reasonwhy]

The author develops just that point. I agree, also.

[MrsColumbo]

Money as a motive for Lizzie doesn’t quite add up to me. I don’t think, considering the times, that she was all that aware of finances or if she had any idea how much money was involved. Lifestyle is a different issue. I do believe she was fed up with seeing other families having creature comforts that I’m certain she knew they could afford. So, AB’s meanness would be a long boil.

It would, however, occur to her that by getting rid of the two of them she could sell that house that may have harbored stress, resentment and a smothering lifestyle.

I’m still not convinced, however, that she had enough rage to enable two murders of such a ferocious style with an hour between them. It takes enormous energy and commitment to kill someone, go through that rush of adrenaline followed by a cool down and then be able to recreate it again. Especially against her own parent.

No, I believe that something triggered the need to kill them both. Something worse than murder was weighing on the person, or persons, who killed the Bordens. A secret or exposure or reputation ruination.

If it was all about money, she could’ve hired someone to kill them and kept her hands, literally, clean, however.

[camgarsky4]

MrsColumbo., I agree that Lizzie and Emma desired a far grander lifestyle. I'm just thinking that lizzie was fully aware that a lot of money would be necessary to enable that dream.

As few examples that imply that perhaps Lizzie had a sense of business/finance....at the inquest, Lizzie listed most of Andrew's real estate holdings, she visited Charles Cook (Borden's business manager) on multiple occasions to talk about real estate and she was very aware of the value of money when Andrew spent $1,500 so that Abby could own half of her families house and Lizzie/Emma demanded that they be given like value. They were given the Ferry house.

On one of her visits to Charles Cook, she sought to validate the market value of the Ferry house she was selling back to Andrew. Someone who is lost in the world of finances would accept whatever her father told her the house was worth. She had enough finance savvy to do her own market evaluation.

[MrsColumbo]

I can see your points, camgrasky4 but if Lizzie was aware of the vast fortune “waiting”, those amounts are chump change by comparison. It’s petty but may reveal a deeper resentment against Abby. If these had been more quiet and stealthy murders, I’d be more inclined to accept fully that money was the motive. This was personal and it was rage beyond what we can even possibly imagine.

Money certainly didn’t hurt later on but she gave a ton of it away to charities so it doesn’t follow that she was solely focused on being Uber wealthy. More comfortable, yes. Rich? Not so much. She didn’t openly display ostentatious wealth in a grand style later.

My instincts still lean, if we’re discussing Lizzie doing these murders, towards fear, exposure/public humiliation or some long fuse of pain that exploded. If you want money, and that’s your prime motive, you think and plan for a long time because you’d like to live to enjoy it. Lizzie is not stupid. Unless she’s really Machiavellian and hacked them to death in two separate blind rage episodes believing no one would believe it. Insanity is out then because she held fast and silent until death. So, it requires unimaginable restraint and precision planning with no assurance that she’d be seen and then remain serene and calm throughout all the aftermath. Serial killers have that gene but that’s compulsion, which she does not seem to have. Doesn’t add up for me yet.

And I’m still bothered by the lack of any blood or messy hair or, well, an actual murder weapon. If she did it then she’s the master criminal of the centuries for being able to summon that level of rage twice with time in between to sit and hum (I’m kidding) until it’s time to find that rage again, get rid of the murder weapon, clean every single drop of blood off of the floor, her hair, every teeny place it could spray and then calmly lean up against the kitchen door and holler for Bridget. She wins of all murderers ever if all of this is true. Something’s missing that we don’t know and it drives many absolutely crazy, myself included.

But, money as the motive, to stay OT, I don’t fully accept that. Something far bigger had to be at stake if you look at the deaths themselves. This was rabid animal territory.

[Reasonwhy]

”….It’s petty but may reveal a deeper resentment against Abby. This was personal and it was rage….My instincts still lean, if we’re discussing Lizzie doing these murders, towards fear, or…some long fuse of pain that exploded….

—partial post

Hi, Mrs. Colombo (watched many of those episodes in my time)!

To reply just to the part of your post dealing with motivation:

Though I do see, with Camgarsky, that Lizzie was financially suspicious and took action to get the best possible deal on the Ferry Street house, she was just applying what she’d learned from watching Andrew there. I agree with you, Mrs. Colombo, that her motivation for murder, if she’s guilty even of merely hiring the actual killer, is more deeply-seated than just money.

Money is the family’s lingua franca, and Lizzie does want the control of it, including for a better lifestyle, but also to supplant Andrew as her controller and Abbey as the feared controller of her future. She also wants the love and power that the fortune represents.

Lizzie is desperately afraid and resentful at the same time, I speculate. Whether Abby gains title to the farm(s) or some stock transfers in the short term, or control of most of the money through a new will in the long term, it represents the same escalating loss of control and of Father’s love to Lizzie. It’s a zero-sum game to her: any win for Abby is an absolute loss for Lizzie.

First, Father gave Abby a house, and most insultingly, kept it secret from the girls: this was a blow to security, and feared as a harbinger of things to come, but it was an even bigger cut to Lizzie’s pride. It dealt a mortal humiliation to Lizzie’s fantasy that Andrew loved her best. Now Lizzie fears (or knows? Lizzie may have overheard or been told by Morse or others) that Abby is about to be given even more — and maybe all—of Andrew’s power/love/control.

Remember, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”? *

She is made furious and terrified, both. She will end this tyranny by ridding herself of her oppressors. And she will enjoy the financial fruits of her righteous act.

How do my thoughts about this fit in with everyone else’s ideas?

* “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’ is an idiom that is adapted from a line in William Congreve’s play, The Mourning Bride (1697). The line from which it came is ‘Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.’”
https://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/quot ... n-scorned/

[MrsColumbo]

Didn’t the sisters decide the house Andrew gave them was too much trouble and sold it back to him or signed over the title? As I understand it, yes, they were upset about his helping Abby about but he made every effort to balance that when, in the end, the reality of managing a rental was too much hassle for the sisters.

The thing that really gets to me is how the prosecution ever thought they had a case to begin with. There was, literally, no evidence connecting Lizzie to this crime and yet they wasted tax payer dollars and put her and her sister through he## without a shred of proof. They made a fatal mistake by prosecuting her on conjecture. She was presumed guilty for the rest of her life based on absolutely nothing. If there hadn’t been a trial, I really do believe that investigators would have been freed up to discover other scenarios, other people’s motives and we’d have far more information upon which to work.

I’ve always been curious to know more about the lady who fainted or swooned in front of the Borden’s house because of the face of the man she saw at the door. Where did that investigation go? Pretty much nowhere. They focused too heavily on Lizzie because, I believe, she was far too obvious and easy a target. I think there’s a lot more going on here that was way beyond the people charged with discovery.

When you read about this and remember people had no tv or in-home entertainment, the streets were crawling with all sorts. Vomiting going on here and there, milk men, postal delivery, random horse carts delivering whatever, nosy neighbors, a doctor on every block who just happen to be driving by, etc. IOW, a veritable mountain of possibilities. Somebody had some ferocious rage and major motive but what that could be may have been beyond any normal person’s understanding at the time. This was basically a peaceful little town, right? These weren’t people exposed to violence the way we are today on a daily basis through the news or television. This would be so far out of their wheel house that I believe something very sinister was, sadly, missed.

[Reasonwhy]

Didn’t the sisters decide the house Andrew gave them was too much trouble and sold it back to him or signed over the title? As I understand it, yes, they were upset about his helping Abby about but he made every effort to balance that when, in the end, the reality of managing a rental was too much hassle for the sisters.
———————————
I believe something very sinister was, sadly, missed.

—partial post

Mrs. C, you sound very rational to me! More rational than Lizzie, who did not go back to calling Abby “Mother” after Andrew tried to make things right. I think that shows Abby was unforgiven.

To the last part of your post, please tell me more. Do you think Lizzie was guilty? Can you share some musing about what kind of thing might have been missed, and how it could have shaped events?

[wall59]

"I’ve always been curious to know more about the lady who fainted or swooned in front of the Borden’s house because of the face of the man she saw at the door. "
-----partial quote of MrsColumbo

Where can I find this?

[camgarsky4]

Wall, i had the same question, first I’ve heard of this.

[PossumPie]

Mrs.Columbo, I completely agree with you on the point that the prosecution jumped way to early to try Lizzie and with the botched investigation they were doomed from the start. I've said that I would have acquitted her on lack of evidence and been frustrated because of her probable guilt. You also make a good point in saying that the viciousness of the attacks took physical and emotional energy. These murders were in all probability very personal.


Be careful disbelieving something simply because you find it hard to believe. Motive for murder often is "unbelievable". A few years ago a 10 year old boy killed a 90 year old woman in my home state of PA because she "yelled" at him. Arguing against a motive from the standpoint of incredulity ("I can't believe XYZ would make her angry enough to kill") is a shaky place to stand. Galileo spent much of his later years in house arrest because the Pope couldn't believe that the earth circled the sun. Papal disbelief doesn't make something false...

I also am curious about "the swooning lady" angle. Please tell us where you saw this, It's not in any of the primary documents so perhaps it was a newspaper story?

[MrsColumbo]

@Possum Pie re the swooning woman the day of the murders. Unfortunately, I don’t have the book handy to cut and paste but it states this: On the day of the murders, several residents, including Ellen Eagan and Officer Hyde (of Fall River police) witnessed a foul-smelling young man, in his twenties, wearing a dark mustache and long duster in the Borden yard.

Ellen Eagen, as I recall reading gave information to the police that she felt sick/swooned by the front yard of the Borden household at or around 11am on the day of the murders. She claimed that she would never forget the face of the man she saw at the Borden door which haunted her. There was a terrible odor that came from him that she couldn’t place. Later, she either thought she was being dramatic (she was fantastical, apparently) or too frightened to talk about it again because she refused to discuss it. That I would’ve liked to see fully investigated further by people who know how which, obviously, these investigators did not once they honed in on Lizzie.

I’m also not really sure that I require a reminder on being careful what to believe, however unbelievable something may seem to me to be. That isn’t even close to who I am nor what I inferred. What I stated was sort of what you said about this but turned inside out. I believe that no one in that sleepy town could think outside the norm and look at things from a far more sinister point of view. They wanted a neat package tied up with a pink bow when, in fact, if they’d expanded their investigation, we would have more info from which to work. And with more knowledge, I think we would have discovered a lot more that was not only going on in the Borden household but also at the bank, with those people AB worked and did business, and any and all people who were close to the family in any way. It amazes me how little we know about Abby for instance. I have always believed there was more to her story. She was too close mouthed for words and also had extended family drama.

@ReasonWhy. Re do I think Lizzie was guilty and what do I think was missed. Logically, I cannot think Lizzie is guilty because there is simply no evidence to indicate that she is, so, no. Do I think she might have done it and gotten away with it? I find it very unlikely. Even with the gross incompetence of the police and investigators, it’s impossible not to leave some clue as to your guilt behind or at the very least crack under pressure for a lifetime. If we look at the OJ murders, there was evidence everywhere and yet? Politics ruled the day there but we know he’s guilty. There is no doubt about it.

But, in this case, I’m not convinced that Lizzie could’ve pulled this off without a bead of sweat. If so, then she’s beyond insane and wouldn’t have been hanged anyway. Lizzie, in my view, is someone who thinks other people do the dirty work, not she. I have more conviction that she paid somebody to do it and then had no problem poisoning them at a later date or had her sister Emma do that job.

I see Andrew Borden as sort of a Mr. Potter from It’s A Wonderful Life. Bank Prez, tight as a wood tick, and not gracious in business. A thoroughly miserable so-and-so whose only thrill in life was accumulating money even when those around him suffered. There is no way this guy didn’t make enemies.

If anyone wants me to lean towards Lizzie’s guilt, there has to be more compelling arguments than “nothing else makes sense” or “she’s the only one with opportunity” or “she wanted money”. All of those things can be argued away far too easily. And they shouldn’t be. It should be impossibly hard not to prove that she wanted the money, was capable of brutal violence against a father with whom she was apparently close, and was able to do all of this without losing a hair pin. The fact is, we don’t know if anyone else was in that house. We don’t know what murder weapon was used (how’d Lizzie get rid of that? She wasn’t ever off the property and alone after the murders).

Have any of you put clothing on that women of this era wore? The zipper wasn’t even invented until the 1930s so it was all laces, hooks and buttons. Just getting a woman’s shoes off was cardio. It’s not that it’s unbelievable, it’s logistically impossible. Unless she had a partner. That’s the only link that works for me.

Frankly, I think Emma was the bigger fruitcake of the two sisters. She was much much more suppressed and oppressed in Lizzie’s shadow. If anyone was going to do something sneaky, it’s Emma.

[PossumPie]

If the man was so smelly that the witness made special note of it, he would have stank up the room sitting there an hour and a half waiting on Andrew to come home... Histrionic eyewitness's testimony in a newspaper don't impress me much.

Your pointing out the difficulty taking off a dress impresses me more...
I'm SURE Andrew had enemies, and if Lizzie didn't do it, surely that is the next suspect pool we should fish in....

Lastly, I don't recall anyone saying Lizzie didn't sweat. In fact in the days before Ban/Degree/Secret antiperspirants , sweating was universal and not even considered unusual.

[camgarsky4]

She is quoting Brown's book with the Ellen Eagan stuff. This fits right in with the myth that Morse remembered random cap and car #'s.
"Modern" writers fabricate a story and sometimes readers choose to take the story at face value. Reader beware.

I have no idea how much research on the case Mrs. Colombo has done, but if she has read the primary documents and/or the Knowlton Papers, she would be aware that there was a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence pointing a clear finger at Lizzie. The reason Lizzie was acquitted (in my opinion) is the lack of an adequate murder weapon explanation and that Lizzie was a wealthy female and could afford a remarkably elite team of defense attorneys. So if that is what is necessary to be found not guilty, that is fine, but to say the prosecution didn't have evidence is a patently incorrect statement.

[PossumPie]

Ellen Eagan's "story" was never given any weight, even at the time:

“The last witness for the day, and the most inconsequential one of all, was the mysterious woman whom the little Polish peddler, Lubinsky, declared he saw coming out of the Borden’s yard on the morning of the tragedy, and at time, not far from the hour of it.

Officer Harrington was detailed to work up the case, and he brushed aside the mystery and revealed the unknown in [is] a big, good-natured Irish woman named Emen [Ellen] Eagan who lives on Mulberry Street.

Mrs. Eagan was put on the stand and after the first three questions had been asked of her, the authorities were satisfied that her evidence had no bearing on the case.

She answered all the queries directed at her with a bluntness, however, which caused a smile to pass around the officers, the first tinge of levity which has appeared on this terribly serious case so far.

In the first place, she was not sure whether or not it was the Borden’s yard from which she emerged on the fatal morning, and a little questioning satisfied the district attorney that, instead of from Borden’s she had come out from the yard of Dr. Kelly, who lives in the house above the Borden homestead.

Her reason for her appearance there was a most natural one. She had been feeling unwell for a day or two preceding the murder, and on Wednesday last had experimented on herself with a few pills.

On Friday [Thursday] morning she had occasion to go down to make some purchases, and was taking the Second Street route when she began to feel the effects of the pill. She hurried into Dr. Kelly’s yard and accosted a servant girl who was washing the windows, and who directed her to a place nearby.

When she came out of the yard the little peddler saw her but she passed down the street, performed her errand and then returned to her home, totally unconscious of the fact that she was to become quite an important personage in the eyes of clew hunters. After Mrs. Eagan had testified, the inquest was adjourned until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning ...” Boston Herald, August 11, 1892: 2.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks Possum! Did you type all of that? Impressive, I'm too lazy. :)

Extract:
She hurried into Dr. Kelly’s yard and accosted a servant girl who was washing the windows, and who directed her to a place nearby.

For those that might not be aware, this sentence is not referring to Bridget (who was washing windows that morning). Ironically, the Kelly servant was also washing their windows that same day.

[camgarsky4]

Reasonwhy and others -- Let me ask the motive question a different way.

Assuming Lizzie was the killer and Andrew wasn't wealthy, would he and Abby have been killed on August 4th?

[camgarsky4]

Reasonwhy and others -- Let me ask the motive question a different way.

Assuming Lizzie was the killer and Andrew wasn't wealthy, would he and Abby have been killed on August 4th?

[Kat]

Thanks Possum! Did you type all of that? Impressive, I'm too lazy. :)

Extract:
She hurried into Dr. Kelly’s yard and accosted a servant girl who was washing the windows, and who directed her to a place nearby.

For those that might not be aware, this sentence is not referring to Bridget (who was washing windows that morning). Ironically, the Kelly servant was also washing their windows that same day.

May I ask how do we know the Kelly girl was washing windows, plz? Thanks!

[camgarsky4]

Bridget trial pg 275.
Q. What part of Yard?
A. She (Mary doolan) was in the yard, front of house, going to wash windows.
Q. She was going to wash the window in the front of the part of the house?
A. Yes, sir

[PossumPie]

During the days after the murders, rumors and fabrications flew like leaves in the wind. Even respectable newspapers printed wild accounts of interviews of alleged eye-witnesses seeing all manner of things. Most of these settled out as absurd, or made-up, but unfortunately are a permanent part of the Borden murder compendium of literature. Unscrupulous, or sloppy writers of books often used theses news articles, and they became canon in the Borden legend. Kat, I'm SO grateful you prod us to show our sources for assertions that we make as the above Eagan account was easily cleared up. Those who are new to the Borden case, or the casual reader reads these things and takes them as truth.

[Reasonwhy]

Reasonwhy and others -- Let me ask the motive question a different way.

Assuming Lizzie was the killer and Andrew wasn't wealthy, would he and Abby have been killed on August 4th?

Yes.

The “B” section of every major newspaper (I call it the Mayhem Section) is daily filled with depraved, atrocious homicides. The reporters are just doing their jobs: covering the killing chaos that is a part of every day. Provocation for these crimes is astonishingly often meager or even absent. Risk of of apprehension is high. Reward is often nil. Somebody is shot because he cut someone else off in traffic. A sibling beats a toddler to death for having eaten the teen’s food. A mother’s boyfriend smothers her baby because the infant won’t stop crying. A grandmother drops her two-year-old over a second story railing in a shopping mall. A man strangles his female partner.

Senseless acts, they occur because the killers have it in them. Whether through genetic predisposition, childhood neglect or abuse, brain injury or emotional trauma, or some combination of these, they become capable of murder.

I believe Lizzie suffered from most of these conditions:

1. Her mother was known to have a bad temper and moodiness. If she was mentally ill, she may have passed genes for that condition to Lizzie.
2. Her mother died before Lizzie turned three, and inadequate parenting by Andrew, Emma, and Abby followed. Some believe that may have included physical abuse or incest.
3. Possible brain trauma may have occurred, when Lizzie suffered a blow to the head from a falling dumb-waiter, during her church volunteer years. (I think this is in Parallel Lives. I will check my copy when we get back to town next week.)

So, I posit that she was constitutionally capable of murder. We know from the above examples that little to no provocation, or motivation, is necessary. However, without a financial incentive, would the senior Bordens have been Lizzie’s victims?

Again, yes: consider a Lizzie damaged from many of the above conditions. Add that Lizzie was bitterly jealous of Abby, and deeply resented what she saw as her father’s deprivation and control. She wanted revenge and liberation (even without a fortune, and as materialistic as Lizzie was) and that was enough reason—for her.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks. Bitterly jealous of what?

[Reasonwhy]

My perception is that Lizzie was jealous of what she saw as Andrew’s preference for Abby.

Lizzie had thought she was his special love, his favorite. That belief compensated for many disappointments in him, and in herself (recall her school principal’s comments, and those of Mrs. Marianna Holmes, who stayed at her side when she was jailed, that Lizzie felt she did not make a good impression on others, and was retiring because of it, etc.). Though vain and imperious, Lizzie was deeply insecure. Her status as a Borden, and as Andrew’s favorite, was her ballast.

Then he took it away, by—secretly!—gifting Abby (purchase of her half-sister’s house), at Lizzie’s expense. And she feared this betrayal was to be soon repeated, at an even grander scale. This was deeply destructive of Lizzie’s fragile sense of worth, and intolerable to her. Because of it, too, she feared for her future material survival.

This, I believe, would have been psychologically true of Lizzie’s mindset even had the dollar amounts at stake been much smaller. After all, what did she steal during the house robbery? Yes, some cash and horse car tickets, but most tellingly, the most expensive, sentimental gift of Andrew’s to Abby: the gold ladies’ watch.

Lizzie’s hatred and fear was building, and would have resulted in the murders, regardless of the absolute financial stakes. Her personal stakes were what caused the explosion.

Now, Camagarsky, would you please explain your own answer to your question? (It was a great question!)

[Kat]

Bridget trial pg 275.
Q. What part of Yard?
A. She (Mary doolan) was in the yard, front of house, going to wash windows.
Q. She was going to wash the window in the front of the part of the house?
A. Yes, sir

Oh thank you kindly...I didn't have to look it up!

[camgarsky4]

Reason, I will definitely post my perspective, but want to process your answer. Pretty sure my natural inclination is to ‘under weigh’ the emotional complexities, so want to give your thoughts time to percolate. Give me a couple days.

[Reasonwhy]

While you are processing Camgarsky, which I do, too, here is an alternate answer for a parallel universe. ;)

This scenario is harder for me to imagine as Lizzie would have had much different expectations. But, suppose the family was of only modest means, and no grand inheritance was to be at stake.

Seems without killing, the only way her emotions against Abby and Andrew might be muted would be if the sisters did move out. The scandal and risk would be less than for murder! But in that case, Emma and probably Lizzie, too, would have had to work or resign themselves to marriage.

Emma, having had 18 months or so at Wheaton, might have become a teacher. It’s harder to picture Lizzie successfully keeping that job, given her trouble managing a class full of boys while teaching Sunday school. But Lizzie might have felt less entitled, and bent her nose to the grindstone.

A less spoiled and temperamentally indulged Lizzie might have developed more empathy for her father and stepmother, and not felt a need to kill. Work can raise one’s sense of competence and independence! Envisioning that Lizzie, though, is imagining a Lizzie with potentially completely different values and more emotional maturity.

[Reasonwhy]

double post

[Kat]

Mr Wells has a different view of Lizzie's dedication to her outside endeavors. Just another perspective...he did know her...
This is from the FRHS quarterly newsletter
Plz click on pic

[Reasonwhy]

Thanks for this, Kat! I see a pattern.

Her family is most loyal, for the longest time: Emma, Morse, extended kin who sometimes still at least ask after her through her sister. Then, all but her cousin, Grace Howe, no longer see her.

Adults in her church support her visibly until after the trial: Mr. Wells, from the news story above, the Reverends Jubb and Buck, Mr. and Mrs. Holmes, Mrs. Brigham. Then most of these are no longer publicizing Lizzie’s innocence, even as many retain ties, some quite close, with Emma.

Friends of near her own age and most personally close (Mr. Wells describes them as often walking to church together) jump ship before the first snows of 1893: Alice Russell and Elizabeth Johnston drop her as soon as Alice reveals that Lizzie burned a dress.

Neighbors flee (except for the Bowens) as from a leper: Mrs. Churchill never returns after she leaves at dinner time Thursday; Southard Miller won’t even come over, and wants nothing to do with it (her?).

Excepting Emma, whose duty to Lizzie was a pledge to her dying mother, it seems those her knew her best can hardly wait to see the back of her.

[Reasonwhy]

3. Possible brain trauma may have occurred, when Lizzie suffered a blow to the head from a falling dumb-waiter, during her church volunteer years. (I think this is in Parallel Lives. I will check my copy when we get back to town next week.)
[/quote]

I did find this, from the Fall River Globe--two months before the murders--in June, 1892:
https://i0.wp.com/lizziebordenwarpsandw ... C372&ssl=1

However, the injury seems only to have hurt her arms. (Interesting, though, in its own right: Could it have contributed to a feeling of being “fed up”/depressed with her life, i.e., 'This is what I get for my volunteering efforts'?) Must have been significant to be written up in the local paper...

But I did find Lizzie was injured, with lasting effects, in her middle teens earlier in her life! This material is discussed in Parallel Lives:

Louisa ("Lulie") Holmes Stillwell's diaries contain several brief mentions of Lizzie. Lulie was two years senior to Lizzie, and they appear to have been casual friends.

In 1876 (Lizzie is then 15), Lulie is writing about surprise deliveries of May baskets, one of which she will deliver to Lizzie, so this gives us the approximate date of the comments to follow. Lulie writes, "....Friday afternoon I started for Lizzie Borden's who is real miserable. She fell last summer and is now feeling the effects of the fall ...." (p. 89, Parallel Lives)

I have seen no other mention of this fall to give us more context; we don't know what parts of her body sustained injury. But, a teenaged Lizzie is still feeling the effects of a fall she has taken nine or more months previous?? To the point of 'real misery'? One would think this fall must have been serious for a young person like Lizzie to still be feeling its effects nearly a year later. Did this fall include a head injury which could have caused trauma to the brain, or serious emotional trauma? Either, if they occurred, could have contributed to existing mental illness or exacerbated a genetic pre-disposition to such.

[camgarsky4]

Reason, good finds and really like how you are pushing on what they might mean. I've read that same info and nothing relevant came to mind, now you have me rethinking!

What injuries would a teenager sustain that would still be affecting them almost a year later that wouldn't be considered serious? A broken arm or leg would have healed in that time and no one ever commented on Lizzie moving like she had a spine injury. So head injury does seem most likely. Was she feeling dizziness or forgetfulness 9 months later?

[PossumPie]

Reason, good finds and really like how you are pushing on what they might mean. I've read that same info and nothing relevant came to mind, now you have me rethinking!

What injuries would a teenager sustain that would still be affecting them almost a year later that wouldn't be considered serious? A broken arm or leg would have healed in that time and no one ever commented on Lizzie moving like she had a spine injury. So head injury does seem most likely. Was she feeling dizziness or forgetfulness 9 months later?

Fractures heal fairly quickly and in 4 months there would be no ill effects. A torn ligament or tendon can take a year to heal, and it is sharp burning pain during that time. A head trauma will either kill you or you would be recovered in a few weeks unless it were a TBI (traumatic brain injury) where frontal lobe damage can cause wild emotional swings and anger outbursts. I was the nurse for a TBI center for awhile and those folks had a short fuse...

[Reasonwhy]

Most interesting information and experience on TBI, Possum! Was wondering if you had any patients at that center who had fallen from a horse? In her diaries, Lulie Stillwell wrote that she and Lizzie had plans to go riding sometimes, though she isn’t specific about whether they would go on horseback, in buggies, or both. If Lizzie’s fall was while horse-back riding, do you think that might have caused a TBI? Thanks for your expertise and opinion.

[PossumPie]

Most interesting information and experience on TBI, Possum! Was wondering if you had any patients at that center who had fallen from a horse? In her diaries, Lulie Stillwell wrote that she and Lizzie had plans to go riding sometimes, though she isn’t specific about whether they would go on horseback, in buggies, or both. If Lizzie’s fall was while horse-back riding, do you think that might have caused a TBI? Thanks for your expertise and opinion.

Any injury in which one strikes one's head hard enough can cause a TBI. They usually cause some amount of unconsciousness, may or may not fracture the skull, and can certainly happen from a fall. Injury happens at the point of the trauma (say the back of the head) AND at the point opposite the trauma (Say the frontal lobe) as the brain is hit in the back and is pushed hard against the front of the skull (or vice versa). Frontal lobe damage may cause mood swings, immature behavior, impulse control problems, etc.
Lizzie did have several of those issues although her cold, quiet, calculating behavior after the crime and during the trial isn't really like a TBI patient. Lizzie allegedly had a kleptomaniac problem and there were apparently standing orders at local stores that if she stole something, Andrew would quietly pay for it. But Lizzie taught Sunday School so she must have been socially appropriate. I'm doubting that she had a TBI severe enough to account for the murders.

[Reasonwhy]

So,that doesn’t sound like her, personality-wise, I agree. So terrific that you’ve had actual experience with these types of patients that you can draw on and share with us. Although it sounds like that part of your work may not have been so much fun for you Thanks, Possum!

[swinell]

Reasonwhy - I think you and I are in the same boat - her pre- and post-trial personality traits just don't match up with a financially motivated killer...not to mention the brutality of the crimes. It seems much more in line with someone, after suffering years of emotional, physical, possibly sexual abuse, combined with probably financial anxiety and a desperate need to start her own life coming to a breaking point. Not that that justifies anything of course. This article was most interesting from that perspective:
https://www.americanheritage.com/what-m ... orden-kill

Can I ask where we know about Sarah Morse's "moodiness" and "bad temper"? So far the only things I've been able to find about Sarah Morse are that she married Andrew, had Emma, then Alice. She taught Emma how to take care of a baby with Alice for two years. Then Alice died. Two years later, she had Lizzie, then two years later, she Sarah told Emma to "take care of baby Lizzie" and died. Is that Parallel Lives? I wanna get through the whole schlew of primary documents before I tackle that door stopper.

Also, Possum, the kleptomania thing is kinda overblown, I'll make another post about that but keep that in mind :D

[Reasonwhy]

Swinell—terrific article! I have read it before, but I appreciate my memory being refreshed; thank you. I would like to explore what seems to be our common ground in finding the motivation for the murders more than straight-forward greed. Will try to write more tomorrow…