Did Lizzie Really Love Her Father?

[Reasonwhy]

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑
“Another small follow up to your post.....many posters keep mentioning that "Lizzie loved her father".

I don't think Lizzie had a 'positive' deep emotional attachment to anyone. Most of us have read enough information to know that Lizzie didn't foster many long term relationships. I tend to think (amateur psychologist alert!!) this was because her 'one-sided' approach to relationships 'burned out' her acquaintances.”


I, too, have seen this belief posted often. It’s almost an assumption, a given, for many. Yet, like you, I really question this “love.” I think your assessment of her one-sided “taking” without much reciprocal “giving” is most apt! She seems to have been a narcissist.

Perhaps this faith in her love for her father took root due to Knowlton’s closing arguments, which some writers interpret were the core of the legend. Knowlton had argued Lizzie only felt she had to kill Andrew to preserve his love—that otherwise he would realize she’d killed Abby, and stop loving her as a result.

My thinking is that she always intended to kill Andrew, for both revenge and material gain. If she waited for him to die a natural death, even if he forgave her for murdering Abby, she might wait many years (his own father had lived into his eighties) and Andrew could make/change a will unfavorable to her at any time.

Beyond that, I speculate her feelings for him, probably never deep, but more of pride to the extent he treated her as his favorite, and vanity at the status his name and wealth brought to her—also had changed when she stopped calling Abby “Mother.” He had betrayed her then, and in the summer of 1892, I believe she harbored a deep suspicion, amounting almost to paranoia, that he was plotting to do it again—for far bigger stakes, even possibly largely cutting her out of a new will.

So did she retain some residual “love” for him? Possibly, but his usefulness to her, alive, was decreasing to the vanishing point. And we know a narcissist values others chiefly for the services they can render to her…

May I say that no matter how definitively I write my posts, I am always trying out my ideas. They are always evolving as I consider others’ points of view. I learn so much here! So, please do respond if you have a different opinion. I get such a kick out of others’ interpretations—thanks, everybody.

[camgarsky4]

Reason -- you have described it perfectly....."his usefulness to her, alive, was vanishing".

To keep playing out this grounder, my view is that Lizzie decided his usefulness could only be maintained with his death. Her fear of Andrew changing his estate to her detriment was illustrated with her comments to Carrie Poole as testified by Carrie's sister Augusta Tripp.

Augusta Tripp Inquest testimony:
Q. Did Lizzie say to you she did not know that either Emma or herself would get anything in the event of her fathers 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. Ms. Carrie Poole, she is very feeble.

Post by nbcatlover » Fri May 07, 2010 3:43 pm
Carrie M. Pool died on June 18, 1893 of pulmonary phthisis (per google form of tuberculosis). Lizzie was brought to New Bedford for trial on June 3, 1893, with the actual trial running June 5 to June 20, 1893. (Somewhere on the forum is the actual death certificate source, but I tired of looking).

This line of thinking is one of the reasons I believe money was the overriding motive for the killings. Or better worded....the fear of losing the money.

There are certain lessor tidbits in this case that resonate loudly to me and this piece of Augusta's testimony is one of those key tidbits. It's right up there with Charles Cook's witness statement to Medley and Elizabeth Johnston's refusal to share the contents of the Marion letter.

[Reasonwhy]

I think we only differ here as to how much Lizzie needed to “punish” her parents in addition to craving their fortune. I see the revenge loathing as having as much weight as the money fear.

But, yes to Augusta Tripp, yes to Charles Cook (know I owe you a post there; I will come through) and yes to Ms. Johnston. “All Important Tidbits Considered” would make a nice new thread…

[PossumPie]

Let's get some background first. Lizzie was 2 years old when her mother died. This is Erik Ericson's "autonomy vs. shame/doubt" stage. The trauma of losing one's mother during this stage could lead to an inability to follow rules (think of "terrible two's" when kids begin to say "NO"). Kids are just learning autonomy--that they are separate beings from their parents and can refuse to do something just because they can. Two-year-olds don't comprehend the permanence of death so Lizzie would be questioning "when is mommy coming home?" Trauma during this stage will cause regression-Lizzie probably was potty-trained but may have regressed back to incontinence. The strict, non-affectionate Andrew would probably be detached from this, and Emma would have become a surrogate mother. Andrew re-married when Lizzie was 5 years old, Erickson's Industry vs inferiority stage. Depending on how Abbey interacted with Lizzie, Lizzie either began learning to be industrious (school learning, building things, etc) or began feeling inferior. Perhaps as a counter to the feelings, Lizzie taught Sunday school and engaged in charities. Here was an opportunity to be in charge, to be looked up to. Living on 2nd street she wouldn't have been seen as a "society girl" even with Andrew's money.
NOW...All we know about Andrew is that he was shrewd as a businessman, got his own way at home but tried to appease the girls sometimes (the property he gave them), and didn't take to the new-fangled ideas the girls had. Nobody spoke ill of the dead Andrew, but many people made a point to say that he was set in his ways and parsimonious (sour). Lizzie gave him a ring at some point- a clear attempt to draw out love from him, and he wore it which must have pleased Lizzie greatly. This gesture however likely didn't negate years of coldness.

I think Lizzie cared for her father, respected her father, but it was a sterile relationship. In all of the testimony, books, news articles, we don't hear anything that Lizzie was passionate about. No obsessive hobby, no passionate friend - male or female. Lizzie most likely felt trapped in that home and saw the way things could be-the trip to Europe surely opened her eyes! Returning to the small, cramped house with the dictator-father may have been the beginning of the end. It's also telling that soon after the return from Europe, Lizzie switched bedrooms with Emma. A last-ditch cry for wanting more?
Love him? in a way she did. But he was an obstacle in the path of any hope of enjoyment in life. The love didn't outweigh the need to be free.

All of the above is my speculation, psychology isn't a science-it's an art.

[Reasonwhy]

….Andrew re-married when Lizzie was 5 years old, Erickson's Industry vs inferiority stage. Depending on how Abbey interacted with Lizzie, Lizzie either began learning to be industrious (school learning, building things, etc) or began feeling inferior….The love didn't outweigh the need to be free…All of the above is my speculation, psychology isn't a science-it's an art.

—partial post

So much here, Possum. “The love didn’t outweigh the need to be free,” is eloquent and worth a deep think.

I also appreciate applying psychology in-depth. (I’m not a psychologist, either, but we can still try to work with their theories.) Few writers believe the crimes occurred without any knowledge and involvement on Lizzie’s part. We will all keep digging for clues to how the murders happened, but as time passes those new hints become thinner on the ground. Our better chance to understand, to me, is to focus on knowing Lizzie and the other players: why they acted as they did. That is the surest road to comprehending what they were capable of.

Do think you have hit something vital about Lizzie and insecurity: Could you please explain more about how you might apply Erickson’s Industry vs. Inferiority stage to Lizzie?

[PossumPie]

Erikson’s Industry vs. Inferiority stage corresponds with Freud’s latency stage. Industry vs. inferiority develops from the conflicts that arise during Freud's oedipal stage of the child’s development to describe a child's feelings of desire for her opposite-sex parent and jealousy and anger toward her same-sex parent. In healthy development, the child will learn to become independent.

I never bought most of Freud's psychosexual mumbo-jumbo when I was in school, but children do often have love/jealousy issues towards their opposite-sex parent before they ever understand what sex is. If Lizzie's infatuation issues of that Freudian stage were met with a cold, emotionless father, it could have impacted her development especially since her biological mother was being "replaced" with another woman.

[Reasonwhy]

So, in a way, Lizzie was like an orphan. She literally didn’t have Sarah. Abby was (possibly) rejected, and Andrew was (possibly) unavailable emotionally and maybe physically, too, if he spent much of his time away at work and didn’t show tactile affection when present (leaving aside incest theories right now). Wonder how “orphan” status would affect a child of her age?

I also wonder if, on top of the above, Lizzie may have suffered harsh corporal punishment or even full-out beatings by either Andrew or Abby? If so, that could have greatly decreased her confidence and built resentment, or even defiance, too. I would bet anyone who was ever hit by a parent has mixed feelings about it, which may run deep. We know Andrew came from Quaker stock—wonder what that culture felt about the need to not spare the rod lest one spoil the child?

I need to do more reading…

[PossumPie]

So, in a way, Lizzie was like an orphan. She literally didn’t have Sarah. Abby was (possibly) rejected, and Andrew was (possibly) unavailable emotionally and maybe physically, too, if he spent much of his time away at work and didn’t show tactile affection when present (leaving aside incest theories right now). Wonder how “orphan” status would affect a child of her age?

I also wonder if, on top of the above, Lizzie may have suffered harsh corporal punishment or even full-out beatings by either Andrew or Abby? If so, that could have greatly decreased her confidence and built resentment, or even defiance, too. I would bet anyone who was ever hit by a parent has mixed feelings about it, which may run deep. We know Andrew came from Quaker stock—wonder what that culture felt about about the need to not spare the rod lest one spoil the child?

I need to do more reading…

One thing I want to emphasize-- I don't believe Lizzie was sexually molested. There is not enough evidence for that, she doesn't act out sexually or is promiscuous, there are NO signs that Andrew was sexually abusive. I played around with that idea as a possible motive but dismissed it. I'm fairly certain Lizzie was subject to corporal punishment--it was "the way" of 1800s New England but that alone was not enough to cause severe psychological trauma or MANY/MOST people growing up then would be a mess. My father believed the "spare the rod spoil the child" maxim and I turned out fine...Ok, there are some neuroses... LOL. My family was very "hands-off" with no affection with the kids or between my parents but we knew we were loved. My hypothesis is that while Lizzie "loved" her father to some degree, she could detach her feelings for him from her desire to be free of his lifestyle and hold over her. I don't think her killing of Andrew was "passionate" She may even have mumbled an "I'm sorry father" under her breath, but she knew it was the only way to get his money and be out from under his thumb. It wasn't hatred-- it was good old-fashioned New England Yankee Utilitarianism. The killing of Abbey on the other hand was vicious, cathartic, and out of pent-up anger.

[Reasonwhy]

I don’t think the incest theories are convincing, either. Just no evidence of it. I understand people looking for the “thing” which may have been aberrant about Lizzie see that incest could be a sufficient cause for serious damage—but it is not a necessary one. Other experiences and/or conditions would suffice.

I have read of many criminals who had physically abusive parents, so I’m still open to the possibility of that…

What causes you to believe Lizzie had such different emotional motivation for the two murders?

[PossumPie]

I don’t think the incest theories are convincing, either. Just no evidence of it. I understand people looking for the “thing” which may have been aberrant about Lizzie see that incest could be a sufficient cause for serious damage—but it is not a necessary one. Other experiences and/or conditions would suffice.

I have read of many criminals who had physically abusive parents, so I’m still open to the possibility of that…

What causes you to believe Lizzie had such different emotional motivation for the two murders?

I think hatred and resentment drove her to hack her stepmother up...I think necessity caused her to kill her father. I think the only reason for the "overkill" of Andrew was to make it look like a madman committed both murders. Andrew wrung the necks of some pigeons simply to keep kids out of his barn, his genes are in Lizzie also...

[Reasonwhy]

And I am talking about possible abuse of Lizzie here, Possum, not what most kids get. My brother and I were spanked by my dad (mainly for getting into spats with each other), but he only used a small paddle, and never lost his temper/did not hit us hard/always discussed it with us so we understood why we were being punished. And both my parents were loving and affectionate, to each other and to us. I am most lucky, my parents were terrific, though arguably had some parenting flaws, as all of us parents do. Like you, I’m no criminal, and turned out okay, I’ve been told :)

I did promise myself, though, that we would never hit our child, because I had always been so confused after my brother and I had been spanked (it was not frequent). I loved my dad so much; would feel shame for having done wrong; and at the same time, would resent him for having hit me. We know Lizzie was characterized as having been a very sensitive child (Mrs. Marianna Holmes to the press), and don’t know if her discipline by Andrew and/or Abby may have been severe: she did call Abby ‘a mean old thing’ to her dressmaker (did Lizzie mean cruel)?

[camgarsky4]

Copied from Possum's post above:
"I think hatred and resentment drove her to hack her stepmother up...I think necessity caused her to kill her father. I think the only reason for the "overkill" of Andrew was to make it look like a madman committed both murders. Andrew wrung the necks of some pigeons simply to keep kids out of his barn, his genes are in Lizzie also.."

Possum, you are thinking that Lizzie was ok waiting another decade or so to receive her inheritance? That if Abby hadn't been around to possibly dilute the inheritance, the killings wouldn't have occurred and Andrew would have been allowed to live his life out as nature would have dictated?

You may not be implying that, so just wanting to be sure I'm tracking.

[Reasonwhy]

I am re-reading Sarah Schmidt’s Lizzie novel of 2017, See What I Have Done. Before her table of contents, one of the quotes she includes is from Emily Dickinson:

We outgrow love like other things
And put it in the drawer

[Reasonwhy]

And hope I may quote without offense Michael Thomas Brimbau (mbhenty?) from his 2015 “play in verse” (of “the trial of Lizzie Borden”): By the Naked Pear Tree, p. XI:

What is a father, but a lover of gauzy kisses
You have become a crystal hull lacking chine
a pitted jewel ruptured of pigment,
when for love you refuse canvas
pouring fidelity upon a stony shore
and spilling the abiding quietus of a daughter’s craving.

In your lack of devotion and adoration
spoiled with imparting disregard
to the wretched begging of a child
you drop anchor in the void of complacency.

For neither riches nor your warmth have unfurled
but instead they have become a proxy in my bosom
where uneasy lies the heart.
Lizzie Borden

[PossumPie]

When I used to do marriage counseling many moons ago, I would sometimes tell fighting couples that love was like riding a bicycle uphill, if you stopped pedaling you didn't stand still, you drifted backward. The love between any two people is a constant pedal uphill. It must be worked on and if Lizzie stopped working the love could have dwindled.

[camgarsky4]

Can't speak for Lizzie, but I'm going to use Possums uphill bike riding analogy with my wife! Maybe she'll stop making fun of me for all the time I spend on Lizzie and this forum!

[Reasonwhy]

Ha! Let’s make it official. From now on, our spouses/significant others have to support us in all things Lizzie or they are not invested in the marriage.